Why evaluating the sound of a single speaker is essential

[Heinrich]

I am sure mono is good for something. Not for listening to music, ...

No way, that's an engineering approach. Develop the most accurate, certain measuring instrument. For properties that are assumed in a fixed theory of reality.

Unfortunately, a post of mine was deleted that referred to recent progress in relation to a model of reality perception. Surely it should be permissible to question where the test subjects take their reference from in order to judge a loudspeaker, what is the expectation, what are remembered parameters that allow an experience to be compared with previous ones?

Then the question immediately arises as to whether these parameters depend on the listening task. Judging loudspeakers, enjoying music, critical listening to confirm the value of the system, finding recordings stupid in pleasurable eclecticism?

Eventless noise is supposed to allow a particularly reliable distinction, now mono is also supposed to be more discriminating, contrary to the intended use of stereo. The question is to what extent these advantages in the measurement/evaluating procedure can be applied to the use of the measured devices in everyday life. As long as this question has not been clarified, there you go! I'm decidedly not an engineer.

Edit: for some reason it came out from mono/noise testing, that the customer would most probably pay for the engineer's preference anyway, flat, controlled, with healthy bass, coincidently. No bad feelings, to have a standard eventually is a good thing.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I am sure mono is good for something. Not for listening to music, that's for sure. If more channels obscure my impression of what I hear for the better I am all for it. Frankly, I am too old to wait around for everyone to agree what needs to be done for me to hear a live performance at home.

One can be overly skeptical. If you follow the science it is clear that nobody enjoys music in mono as much as in stereo or multichannel. We may be less aware of some timbral errors much (not all) of the time, but the directional and spatial information more than compensates

 

[Somafunk]

I am sure mono is good for something. Not for listening to music, that's for sure. If more channels obscure my impression of what I hear for the better I am all for it. Frankly, I am too old to wait around for everyone to agree what needs to be done for me to hear a live performance at home.

Yeah?……….but you’re surely not too old to be educated as to why mono is used for evaluation purposes ?, I can be just as happy listening to the faux stereo coming from a 10” wide Bluetooth speaker, but my 3way monitors and two dual opposed subs can enhance my appreciation of techno/electronic music.

 

[SIY]

Mono means and meant: monophonic: one loudspeaker.

Thank you- it was ambiguous. All single speaker is mono, but not all mono is single speaker.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I was wondering what happened to the one chair that was missing when I was there!!!

Not guilty. Mine's another color.

 

[JPA]

I was wondering what happened to the one chair that was missing when I was there!!!

It seems to me that Harman didn't follow best practices when installing acoustic treatment. Lots of 1-2" absorbers, and diffusors placed apparantly haphazardly. What were they trying to accomplish?

 

[NTK]

It seems to me that Harman didn't follow best practices when installing acoustic treatment. Lots of 1-2" absorbers, and diffusors placed apparantly haphazardly. What were they trying to accomplish?

Have you read Sean Olive's paper?

AES Convention Papers Forum » A New Reference Listening Room for Consumer, Professiona,l and Automotive Audio Research

The AES Forum is where our members get to interact with each other in between conferences and section meetings.

secure.aes.org

 

[JPA]

Have you read Sean Olive's paper?

AES Convention Papers Forum » A New Reference Listening Room for Consumer, Professiona,l and Automotive Audio Research

The AES Forum is where our members get to interact with each other in between conferences and section meetings.

secure.aes.org

No, I'm not an AES member, and when I try to purchase the paper nothing goes into the cart.

 

[NTK]

No, I'm not an AES member, and when I try to purchase the paper nothing goes into the cart.

AES is having a problem with their web site.

 

[Holmz]

@Floyd Toole

First, Thank you for your time and drilling down more into some of these issues and questions from your decades of research. I’m very much looking forward to the 4th Edition of your book which I understand is going to have an updated and expanded section on recording studios.

I think this question directly relates to the original post, and gist of the thread. What is your recommendation for the consumer who believes in the science, and is purchasing floor standing speakers for their large American living room. They look at the Spinorama data (FR and DI), may even consult predicted Preference Score, w/wo sub, find 3 Brand/models of floor standing speakers that look to fit budget and other parameters, what is your suggestion on how they should evaluate these speakers in their home?*

I thought I had an idea on how to go about this and then caught your recent interview with Erin and you reminded me that “auditioning them for a week” to see how they sound is fruitless because of acclimation. Had to go back to your book and remind myself of that.

It seems to me that what has to happen is you have to get a really good friend who can set Model A and Model B, initially, up in your living room without you being in the room, and assuming they can level match them properly with an A/B (left right) switch, then leads you in blindfolded to the listening chair, plays the pink noise, plays the obligatory “reference” tracks including the 1st 30 seconds (but no more) of Ms, Chapman’s Fast Car and you say, “out of those two, I would go with ____” and maybe also state by how much so. “Very close but slight edge to L, or R by a country mile.” Then get led outta the room with blindfold, so audio buddy can remove the one (possibly the one that won in round 1 just to keep you on your toes) and bring in Model C for another A/B, and in the interest of science, do a 3rd round so all 3 have been compared to each other at least once. Hopefully the selection was consistent.

Let’s even assume all 3 have very similar bass response so we don’t need to account for the 30% factor for bass performance.

Back to this thread, let’s say there is clear hierarchy of 1, 2 and 3, is a repeat blind listen of maybe 1 and 2 but now in stereo even worth while (assuming it takes 10 mins to change from 1 to 2)?

What do you suggest for the consumer, who believes in the science, has researched available Spinorama/preference scores, but before making a $10k - $20K (Eg. M2) purchasing decision they want to (blasphemy I know) give them a little listen.

There is constant stumbling in the Forum when members post a question like “Model A, B or C for my Living Room.” They will offer go to great trouble to give dimensions and photos of room, primary use (HT, music only). The responses are, for the most part, well thought out and intentioned, but run the spectrum of what sounded best to them, they own Brand B and can’t say enough, what’s in the Spinorama graph data they like/don’t like, or quoting you on sighted listening evaluation.

What do you suggest for the consumer, trying to decide on floor standers for their large living/music room, in making their final selection with a listening test?

*I picked floor standing speakers because of the 86% preference score correlation and a listen at home from your statement in your Edit “Audio-Science in The Service of Art” paper https://www.harman.com/documents/audioscience_0.pdf that we still need to listen. I think it was in the context of design and manufacture but assume it also applies to the end user.

While I like the post, the Spinorama DI is most useful as knowing when an EQ can be (and when it cannot) used to correct the FR of a speaker.
The whole narrow versus wide sort of needs to assume that has an understanding of the room that the speakers will be going into, so a tiled room but get narrow pattern.

The everything to do with the time domain performance is still applicable to a mono speaker, but it is always timberal and frequency response that are talked about.
Hence everything with the imaging and stage is sort of hand waved away.
Maybe it is in step #2, but the discussion always ends at step #1.

Basically the while decision thing is somewhat a trade off of which poison one wants.
But a mono test does allow for bad speakers to be identified more easily as bad because of timberal and frequency response issues.

Which begs the question of how in a stereo test one can pick ones that trail behind in a mono test?
What are they bringing to the table that can elevate them up above their class?

 

[Heinrich]

The question is to what extent these advantages in the measurement/evaluating procedure can be applied to the use of the measured devices in everyday life. As long as this question has not been clarified, there you go!

O/k, again, fair enough. Nobody seems to be interested. I can develop the argument further.

The judgment about the playback is based on a subjective personal assessment. The assessment follows an uncertain expectation, is based on unnamed foundations, a personal, unquestionable preference. We do not want to know where this comes from (see above). Therefore we must assume that every individual has their own preferences!

If it is the case that the preference and its origin remain in the dark, then it cannot be said with certainty that a person has only one preference. This may change, preconsciously, depending on the situation.

On the basis of these uncertainties - see my question above as to whether one wants to address this - it can be argued that:

• people see themselves as confronted with a special listening task
• they change their expectations, the reference/preference accordingly

So one possible explanation for the greater congruence of the evaluations is that people's p//references converge. Or, to put it another way, it is not the clarity of assessment, the certainty of judgment that changes, but that the underlying preference changes from a personal to a general one, some common denominator.

This assumption can be supported by the expectation that people have been 'trained', but probably in mono. (I cannot reliably discriminate lighter colorations in random noise; I forget within seconds what is 'neutral'. After a few comparitive assessments I get totally confused. Try it yourselves. Some training takes care of that, I assume.)

Tl;Dr: Before the whole thing degenerates into an essay, I would have expected Harman to cross-check this in the context of a scientific endeavor. Yes, I would have expected even more effort with the cross-check than with the mere (self-)confirmation of an assumption.

In any case, I reject the idea that people should be in a more or less poor condition to make a taste judgment about a playback. Perhaps with stereo/surround they just want something different, something each of their own. It's a possibility, and would meet my expectations. That's the way they are, very clever and have a mind of their own.

That was it from my side, nothing more to say ...

 

[Travis]

I thought I had an idea on how to go about this and then caught your recent interview with Erin and you reminded me that “auditioning them for a week” to see how they sound is fruitless because of acclimation. [Edit: after a re-listen of the interview what you actually said was “adaptation sets in.”] Had to go back to your book and remind myself of that

I had a chance to re-listen to Erin’s interview of @Floyd Toole Dr. Toole and just realized it was actually 4 years ago, I just recently happened to catch it because it popped up as a suggesting in my YouTube feed and what he is saying is as, or more applicable today, as it was then.

Here it is, if anyone missed it:

The relevant part starts at 14:30 where Dr. Toole mentions the following:

Comparative listing is essential. (Listening to one pair of speakers provides nearly no information, other than identifying a tune)

Comparing 2 pairs is better than 1 pair because if both pairs share a common problem it can be missed. 3 pairs is sort of a minimum, 4 is better. (Nice story about how the 4 speaker comparison was “chosen” from his early days at the NRC).

A long audition on a single model in your home provides almost no useful information a/ “adaptation” sets in. “The speakers don’t break in, you break in” to the speakers, warts and all. We have the ability to listen through and adapt to “crappy” speakers. (Obviously an industry term)

These gems/reminders were all in the context of his 50+ years of research, and how his research translates to information for manufacturers to design and build good speakers, and the need for objective evaluating/reviewing of speakers.

(Earlier in the interview Erin and Dr. Toole covered need for blind testing in speaker comparisons, and that his research was typically double blind as that is preferred method in science).

Overall what I took away is: if you have ability to do a blind 3 or more speaker comparison you can come away with some useful information. Short of that it’s a complete guess.

Unfortunately, Erin never asks Dr. Toole “so knowing all of this, how can the consumer incorporate all of this great research in a buying a pair of speakers? Just assume they have the ability to get 3 or 4 pairs of speakers in their home at the same time, a really great spouse/audio friend who is willing to help (in the interest of science), how should they go about trying to make the best choice possible for their home?”

 

[MarkS]

A long audition on a single model in your home provides almost no useful information a/ “adaptation” sets in. “The speakers don’t break in, you break in” to the speakers, warts and all. We have the ability to listen through and adapt to “crappy” speakers. (Obviously an industry term)

So why does no one ever take the next logical step?

Which is: speaker sound quality is irrelevant.

If it really is nearly impossible to tell by extended listening to a single pair of speakers whether they are "good" or not, then just buy the cheapest. You won't hear the difference after a month, according to these claims.

Or if the visual impression of speakers really does overwhelm the sonic impression (as those who say sighted listening is useless would assert), then we should all be buying speakers based on looks alone, and ignoring sonics.

 

[amirm]

Or if the visual impression of speakers really does overwhelm the sonic impression (as those who say sighted listening is useless would assert), then we should all be buying speakers based on looks alone, and ignoring sonics.

Just like placebo, those effects wear out. Even on adaptation, one day you listen to a proper speaker and realize how wrong yours sound.

 

[MattHooper]

So why does no one ever take the next logical step?

Which is: speaker sound quality is irrelevant.

Yup.

Push skepticism of informal listening too far and you end up in a very strange and indefensible place.

Just like placebo, those effects wear out. Even on adaptation, one day you listen to a proper speaker and realize how wrong yours sound.

Which suggests that informal listening to a loudspeaker to understand its character isn’t simply useless.

 

[MarkS]

Just like placebo, those effects wear out. Even on adaptation, one day you listen to a proper speaker and realize how wrong yours sound.

There is no research that supports the claim that adaptation eventually wears out.

Also, how is it that I can "one day listen to a proper speaker" in some room other than mine, not side-by-side with my own speakers, and "realize how wrong" mine sound?

Did you not just claim that speakers cannot be reliably judged unless they are side-by-side in the same room? That evaluations without such a side-by-side comparison are "essentially random"?

 

[JPA]

There is no research that supports the claim that adaptation eventually wears out.

IMO, adaptation doesn't wear out, but you eventually become dissatisfied with the sound without knowing what is bothering you about it.

 

[MarkS]

Opinions are fine, but this is Audio Science Review, and so it is relevant to know which opinions are backed by controlled listening experiments and which are not.

That "you eventually become dissatisfied with the sound without knowing what is bothering you about it" is in the latter category.

 

[Vuki]

As @amirm said- good measurements are very useful guide when choosing loudspeakers, but final judgement is listening in your own listening room in stereo (or mch), because there is no other way to know how would they sound there.

 

[Floyd Toole]

As @amirm said- good measurements are very useful guide when choosing loudspeakers, but final judgement is listening in your own listening room in stereo (or mch), because there is no other way to know how would they sound there.

You are right. And I will add, for the nth time, because of small rooms bass is unique to every listening situation and it accounts for about 30% of our overall impression - for some even more. It will ALWAYS need attention before one can say that one is evaluating the "speaker".