Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound (Read 78637 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #75 –
To return, I hope, to the thread topic, it makes sense to me to reduce variables as much as possible in such a study.  Stereo imaging is affected by things other than the frequency response of a speaker so it makes sense to eliminate it as a variable since a good speaker with a +-3db response over the audio range but +-2db matching errors between pairs at the listening point may still have worse stereo imaging than a basically worse speaker with a +- 5db curve but still maintaining +-0.5db matching between pairs, assuming everything else is equal.

But, for the purposes of the study, perhaps the variations in sound quality shouldn't be done by varying the speakers, but by varying the source itself.  Say, switching an equalizer in and out and then seeing if listeners then preferred the flatter response.

I realize you have sophisticated speaker moving capabilities but perhaps in this case you are tempted by the technology you have available to use that when it might be better not to.  Just a thought.


Ed Seedhouse
VA7SDH

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #76 –
At about this point, I suspect Dr Olive is getting a bit exasperated. As the blog entry shows, this was an opportunistic test, to have a rather more disciplined look at the claims that The Young are so corrupted that they prefer MP3 to the real thing. Every once in a while, The Young delight one by having better sense than they're normally credited with, and what is, after all, a quick and dirty test supports the view that the original claim was highly dodgy.

And while demonstrating the technology, keep it real by seeing what sort of speaker they prefer. Surprise, and this is perhaps more of a surprise, they prefer nice accurate speakers. But maybe the sort of high school kids who go on a tour of an acoustic research lab aren't the target for doof-doof. You wouldn't use this finding as the basis for your designs for the youf market, but it is nice to know about it.

As for it not being fair to test electrostatics as mono: as I thought, Quad electrostatics were on the market in 1957, according to Wikipedia, which is a few years before stereo became at all widely available in the UK.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #77 –
Quote from: Ed Seedhouse on
To return, I hope, to the thread topic, it makes sense to me to reduce variables as much as possible in such a study.  Stereo imaging is affected by things other than the frequency response of a speaker so it makes sense to eliminate it as a variable since a good speaker with a +-3db response over the audio range but +-2db matching errors between pairs at the listening point may still have worse stereo imaging than a basically worse speaker with a +- 5db curve but still maintaining +-0.5db matching between pairs, assuming everything else is equal.

But, for the purposes of the study, perhaps the variations in sound quality shouldn't be done by varying the speakers, but by varying the source itself.  Say, switching an equalizer in and out and then seeing if listeners then preferred the flatter response.

I realize you have sophisticated speaker moving capabilities but perhaps in this case you are tempted by the technology you have available to use that when it might be better not to.  Just a thought.


This isn't really on topic either but your questions are too tempting for me to not answer.

I've been doing some  cross-cultural research on preferred spectral balance of music reproduction where we are only manipulating the spectral response of a linear loudspeaker  (not speaker C) via equalization. The advantages here is that you can keep factors like distortion, directivity, speaker position and its interaction with room acoustics  constant w/o the need for a speaker mover. I've been testing the sound quality preferences  of Japanese, Chinese and other cultures to see if their tastes in sound quality are different or is good sound universal?  I will probably be talking about this at a  proposed workshop on the subject at the upcoming AES Convention in San Francisco in November. We hope to run listening experiments over the first few days at the convention and present the results on the last day.

If you capture the loudspeaker/room as a set of binaural room impulses reproduced over head-tracked headphones, you can repeat the experiment anywhere in the world using a portable BRS playback system. No listening room, speaker mover or loudspeakers required.

We didn't have time to run the High School students through such an experiment. Besides it is also very useful to know preference of different market segments  using the actual products versus only a controlled subset of the variables.

There is some serious market research going on within Harman these days, and I will become more involved in listening tests and sound quality research driven by important market research questions.

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #78 –
Quote from: solive on
We were testing stereo codecs - not loudspeakers -- and the codec might produce spatial artifacts.

You used stereo because that is exactly how you would focus on spatial perception, just like you used mono to focus on very specific non-linearities, such as resonances...in a loudspeaker. You used stereo for the codec because that is exactly how the end user is going to perceive it, yet you introduce a completely artificial environment and method for perceiving one channel of what is clearly a stereo speaker system, even though your own research (and basic common sense) indicates that our perception of the multi source (stereo) soundfield is not the same as a single source (mono) - which is an utterly abstract way of perceiving the ML's performance. No end user is going to listen to the ML that way, any more than the codec user.

Quote from: solive on
Loudspeakers don't create spatial artifacts (the artifacts are in the recordings), but  they produce differences in  apparent image width/depth, which are related to their directivity and frequency response.

That is completely contradictory. Quite simply, loudspeaker do affect the spatial presentation of the source material (what is "accurate" is a whole other can of worms, hence my preference to use the term "realism" from a stored acoustic memory standpoint), including their interaction with the room...as you well know. And yes, the directivity and FR are snapshots of the entire polar field generated by the loudspeaker, which then interacts with the reverberant room...and each other.

Quote from: solive on
No need to test them in both modes.

That is absurd. There is only one way to test our perception of the generated-stereophonic-soundfield-room-interaction-with listener somewhere between...and it isn't in mono with a front wall centered source with listener(s) directly in front. The dipole, large acoustic membrane ML will generate a significantly different polar field than the piston source monopole, one which an anechoic snapshot of the frontal response will be wholly insufficient to describe. It will give you significant info, just not all of it. And you know as well as I do that those narrow band notches will be far more difficult to hear than see, the downward slope of the treble may indeed sound "dull" compared to the Infinity. Again, some conclusions may be inferred...but not all, from a single snapshot (if they were both piston source monopoles, I'd agree with you). If you have an FR snapshot (or spatial avg) from the listener position, with the ML placed in the corner of the room, as it would be listened to...like your codec...it would be informative to see it. Please present it if you have it, thanks.

Quote from: solive on
Smeared?? What does that term mean? Do you greater ASW (apparent source width) or spaciousness? Most listeners consider that a good feature unless they are tight-assed imaging purist puritans [it's getting late so my tongue is getting looser]

"Smear" as in the spatial presentation of a wide dispersion piston source monopole (362) placed 2' from a reflective side wall (really real world living room) causing early reflections. "Smear" that won't be there in the identically positioned from sidewall dipole ML, due to the strong side null. I'm starting to wonder if you've ever listened to these very different polar field producing sources in a real room. Have you?

Quote from: solive on
although I always seem to be the one who ends up doing all the work 

There are both 360's and ML's present here in Tampa. I'll see about getting them together to compare perceptions of their respective stereo soundfields in a real living room, by listeners behind a (hopefully) acoustically transparent screen. You assistance and advice would be greatly appreciated. Sound reasonable  ?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #79 –
Quote from: solive on
Odigg,
I was writing my response as you were writing this response. We clearly think along the same lines. I like you


Thanks for the compliment!  I'm sure *most* everybody likes you too as the work you do is very valuable to us.  A number of us are garage audio scientists and we don't have the resources (or even degrees in the right field) to perform the type of research you are conducting.  Your findings are very helpful of cutting through the BS and helping us understand what is really going on in the world of audio and listening.


analog scott - I began to respond in a comprehensive manner to your post, but realized I've already said most of what I want to say.  I also would prefer to leave this thread on topic.  I will add that I think you are making certain assumptions about the buyers of electrostatic speakers (ML in particular), and the dealers of such speakers, that are not accurate.  I say this based on my experience at multiple dealers and having known people who own electrostatic speakers.  I don't know if ML has made the same assumptions you have.  Some speaker manufacturers do make these assumptions and they very plainly say so when they designate a speaker a "near field" monitor.

Dr. Olive (or somebody at Harmon) probably has better data on the buyers of such speakers.  If such data exists and Dr. Olive is able to share it, perhaps another thread can be started to discuss this.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #80 –
Quote from: odigg on
Quote from: solive on
Odigg,
I was writing my response as you were writing this response. We clearly think along the same lines. I like you


Thanks for the compliment!  I'm sure *most* everybody likes you too as the work you do is very valuable to us.  A number of us are garage audio scientists and we don't have the resources (or even degrees in the right field) to perform the type of research you are conducting.  Your findings are very helpful of cutting through the BS and helping us understand what is really going on in the world of audio and listening.


analog scott - I began to respond in a comprehensive manner to your post, but realized I've already said most of what I want to say.  I also would prefer to leave this thread on topic.  I will add that I think you are making certain assumptions about the buyers of electrostatic speakers (ML in particular), and the dealers of such speakers, that are not accurate.  I say this based on my experience at multiple dealers and having known people who own electrostatic speakers.  I don't know if ML has made the same assumptions you have.  Some speaker manufacturers do make these assumptions and they very plainly say so when they designate a speaker a "near field" monitor.

Dr. Olive (or somebody at Harmon) probably has better data on the buyers of such speakers.  If such data exists and Dr. Olive is able to share it, perhaps another thread can be started to discuss this.



How is it that my experience as an owner of electrostatic speakers are "assumptions" and your experience as someone who has not had that experience...is "experience?" I really don't see how your "experience' which is certainly less informed on certain levels is "experience" where as my twenty years experience as an owner who has delt with two different manufacturers of electrostatic speakers as an owner, who has dealt with three different dealers as a customer and, believe it or not, has actually met and/or corisponded with "a few" fellow owners of electrostatic speakers along the way? who is really making the assumptions here?

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #81 –
Quote from: analog scott on
How is it that my experience as an owner of electrostatic speakers are "assumptions" and your experience as someone who has not had that experience...


You can have 100 years of experience and still count as noise in a scientific sense, if you refuse to go any further than holistic, singular experience comparisons. Objectivity and repeatability are the driving forces behind scientific success. That requires certain amounts of abstraction. You don't seem to be willing to follow that path. Your arguments are of the same type over and over again and all lead into the same direction: one cannot say anything until you have basically my setup (or that of another ML expert). Those then also cannot present any criteria, but infer from ears and experience. You could go over to the Stereophile forum, where people hug each other for experiences like this, but HA might be the wrong place. Nailing down significants without resentments against abstraction rather seems to be the culture here.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #82 –
I bet the silent majority of readers with no particular axe to grind are thinking that testing stereo speakers in mono is a strange thing to do.

I've read the justifications. I don't buy them. I can see how on-axis mono listening can give more repeatable results where differences are more easily audible - but maybe that's another way of saying that normal stereo listening depends far more on the interaction between the speakers and the room.

Like it or not, most of us are stuck with interaction between our speakers and our listening rooms. Obviously it would complicate things, but I think many people are interested in which speakers sound best in the locations where the speakers look+fit best in their living room. Other people are interested in which speakers sound best given the opportunity to place the speakers at the optimum location for that pair of speakers. Other people are interested in creating the best listening room, placing the speakers optimally, and getting the best sound.

These are harder questions to answer, and I don't want to make the best the enemy of the good, but the concerns are real.

I'm sure Sean can envisage a Mark II speaker switcher room with a speaker switcher in each corner to deliver stereo tests. How much space have you got Sean?

Cheers,
David.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #83 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I bet the silent majority of readers with no particular axe to grind are thinking that testing stereo speakers in mono is a strange thing to do.


No doubt.

Quote
I've read the justifications. I don't buy them.


I presume that is related to what you know and don't know about speakers.

While I pesonally have only built a few dozen speakers that were one-offofjects, for the past 30 or more years I've hung pretty closely with  a number of people whose accomplisments with respect to speakers are virtually unknown in the world of high end audio, but who people like Sean know eactly about. I'm talking about people who have presented many important AES conference papers and even a few JAES articles.  People like Clark and Geddes. I've also hung with people who each have designed complete audio systems that have sold in the 100,000s.  People who have contributed indirectly to Sean's employer's bottom line.

I'm not going to claim that I've a speaker expert because these people are my friends, but these people don't work in a vacuum. They each have something like "Kitchen Cabinets" where they present their ideas and look for feedback from people whose opinions they value. I've been part of those discussions and experiments for decades.

I see the current discussion in that context. I so strongly disagree with much that has been said lately about evaluating speakers that I'm tempted to start a thread called "Is there such a thing as a center channel speaker". The point being that While we talk about speakers as being center channel speakers and main speakers and surround and ambience speakers, those are more terms of art and merchandising and conveniece than technical definitions or requirements.

For example, one of the most satisfying and revealing systems for listening to stereo recordings that I know of is nominally a surround system with 9 identical nearly full-range speakers and 2 subwoofers with gargantuan bass extension and dynamic range. Its owner who is merely an AES Fellow, obviously doesn't believe that a no-compromise audio system needs to have speakers whose design is different for the various roles, other than subwoofers. He's hardly unique. Indeed, he's following the same game plan as Sean.

Quote
I can see how on-axis mono listening can give more repeatable results where differences are more easily audible - but maybe that's another way of saying that normal stereo listening depends far more on the interaction between the speakers and the room.


I would start from this point. The ideal speaker would be a straight wire that converts electrical signals to sound. In fact we know that is naive. In broad terms, speakers have 2 outputs - their on-axis response and their off-axis response. There is very little evidence that the requirements for on-axis and off-axis response vary with the number of channels given that the final system response is appropriate.  There's no doubt that it is less confusing to compare speakers the fewer channels that are active down to no more than two and perhaps one.

Quote
Like it or not, most of us are stuck with interaction between our speakers and our listening rooms.


Only in a world where speakers are locked into pre-ordained posistions and orientations and there is no such thing as equalization and adjustment of individual channel levels.

Quote
Obviously it would complicate things, but I think many people are interested in which speakers sound best in the locations where the speakers look+fit best in their living room.


Rasing the question of how does one make sound quality as independent as possible from bad choices of location in the room.

Quote
Other people are interested in which speakers sound best given the opportunity to place the speakers at the optimum location for that pair of speakers. Other people are interested in creating the best listening room, placing the speakers optimally, and getting the best sound.


The last approach can really work. I would go so far as to say that if you aren't willing to make the room the servant of the speaker systems, you aren't really trying.  Dilentantes need not apply.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #84 –
Quote from: googlebot on
Quote from: analog scott on
How is it that my experience as an owner of electrostatic speakers are "assumptions" and your experience as someone who has not had that experience...


You can have 100 years of experience and still count as noise in a scientific sense, if you refuse to go any further than holistic, singular experience comparisons. Objectivity and repeatability are the driving forces behind scientific success. That requires certain amounts of abstraction. You don't seem to be willing to follow that path. Your arguments are of the same type over and over again and all lead into the same direction: one cannot say anything until you have basically my setup (or that of another ML expert). Those then also cannot present any criteria, but infer from ears and experience. You could go over to the Stereophile forum, where people hug each other for experiences like this, but HA might be the wrong place. Nailing down significants without resentments against abstraction rather seems to be the culture here.



You cite your experience which clearly has no advantage over my experience and is pretty clearly less inofrmed than my experience and then you call my experiences assumptions while using your experience as an objective reference. That is simply a double standard and a coupling of two logical fallacies. You appeal to the authority of your own experience and then use a classic logical fallacy of movement of the goal posts against my experience by invoking "science" when attacking the validity of my experience. Are you seriously waving the science flag here? We were talking about whether or not customers were duly informed about the nature of the product! How can you possibly wave the science flag? Your "experience" with how well informed the buying decisions of electrostatic speaker owners is "scientific?"I have spoken of my personal experience in this regard. *I* was duly informed as a customer. I have yet to run across *any* owner of electrostatic speakers that have expressed any problems about having been duly informed and/or educated on the nature of the sweet spot before they bought their speakers. I also clearly noted that my experience was in no way a universal indicator on how every dealer deals with every customer. I also have asserted that anyone (unless they are hearing impared) can and should recognize this particular aspect of any electrostatic speaker that exhibits it with the simplest of auditions. It is my position that for one to be unaware of the sweet spot issues with a given pair of electrostatic speakers one would have had to not do any kind of meaningful audition.

You have some "science" on the matter to offer up that refutes my experiences or my assertions?

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #85 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I've read the justifications. I don't buy them. I can see how on-axis mono listening can give more repeatable results where differences are more easily audible - but maybe that's another way of saying that normal stereo listening depends far more on the interaction between the speakers and the room.


Well, I haven't actually read the papers Olive mentions, but he says that:
a) mono test results track stereo results b) listeners are more discriminating in mono

do you not believe these? or if you do, do you have a reason to ignore them? because, if the mono results do track the stereo results, just with less "noise", it would seem reasonable to use mono tests, or not?

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #86 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I bet the silent majority of readers with no particular axe to grind are thinking that testing stereo speakers in mono is a strange thing to do.

I've read the justifications. I don't buy them.

Sounded strange to me too but I'm buying. I don't think we'll get much further by discussing it.  What needs to happen next is someone needs to try to reproduce Sean's findings WRT mono vs. stereo listening tests. Has this happened?

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #87 –
Quote from: aclo on
Well, I haven't actually read the papers Olive mentions, but he says that:
a) mono test results track stereo results b) listeners are more discriminating in mono

do you not believe these? or if you do, do you have a reason to ignore them? because, if the mono results do track the stereo results, just with less "noise", it would seem reasonable to use mono tests, or not?
I haven't really thought about it before reading this thread, so in terms of what works when developing speakers, I'm happy to defer to those who actually do it.

However, "mono test results track stereo results" - well, yes, kind of. I'm sure I can build a speaker where this doesn't work! I only have to paint the red terminal black, and the black terminal red, on one of a pair of speakers and we all know what will happen. one speaker listening = great. two speaker listening = no bass! There are also speaker designs with side firing drivers - is anyone seriously suggesting they sound or measure the same in Sean's speaker changer as they do toed-in near-ish to the corner of a room?

I think it's unwise to quantify X by measuring Y, just because "X tracks Y" pretty well in most situations. More importantly, if you're going to publish these results, it opens them up to easy and obvious criticism.


As for "listeners are more discriminating in mono", well, if we're trying to find the best value for money, doesn't this nullify the test? Listen in mono, and the results may show an audible improvement (achieved by spending more, maybe) which is inaudible in stereo, and therefore is a waste of money.


Don't get me wrong - I think these experiments are wonderful - I bet that listening blind (rather than sighted) improves the quality of the results 100x more than listening in mono (rather than in stereo) diminishes the quality of the results.

In my own limited experience however, it is the speaker/room interaction that causes me the most problems. To my ears, different rooms (+ speaker placements in those rooms) sound more different than different speakers...
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Rasing the question of how does one make sound quality as independent as possible from bad choices of location in the room.
Yes, exactly. I don't think Sean's current experiments are intended to tell you anything about this at all. Which is fine. But it may mean that the "best" speaker in his test isn't the "best" speaker in my room.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Other people are interested in which speakers sound best given the opportunity to place the speakers at the optimum location for that pair of speakers. Other people are interested in creating the best listening room, placing the speakers optimally, and getting the best sound.


The last approach can really work. I would go so far as to say that if you aren't willing to make the room the servant of the speaker systems, you aren't really trying.  Dilentantes need not apply.
Well, indeed  , but some of us are married, and even if we are lucky enough to have "spare" rooms in our houses, they're not always the right size or shape or construction to make a good listening room. I know many of us laugh at the amount audiophiles spend on their systems, but if you're going to factor in the cost of a 3x4x5metre room in the UK, that's about £20,000 - £40,000.

Hence the value of a speaker nearly defying the laws of physics, and working really well in a corner of the living room.

Cheers,
David.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #88 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: aclo on
Well, I haven't actually read the papers Olive mentions, but he says that:
a) mono test results track stereo results b) listeners are more discriminating in mono

do you not believe these? or if you do, do you have a reason to ignore them? because, if the mono results do track the stereo results, just with less "noise", it would seem reasonable to use mono tests, or not?


I haven't really thought about it before reading this thread, so in terms of what works when developing speakers, I'm happy to defer to those who actually do it.

However, "mono test results track stereo results" - well, yes, kind of. I'm sure I can build a speaker where this doesn't work! I only have to paint the red terminal black, and the black terminal red, on one of a pair of speakers and we all know what will happen. one speaker listening = great. two speaker listening = no bass! There are also speaker designs with side firing drivers - is anyone seriously suggesting they sound or measure the same in Sean's speaker changer as they do toed-in near-ish to the corner of a room?


That is a good point: it cannot be generally true. So it comes down to what type of speakers was used, and in what environment, during those tests. A good point.

Quote
I think it's unwise to quantify X by measuring Y, just because "X tracks Y" pretty well in most situations. More importantly, if you're going to publish these results, it opens them up to easy and obvious criticism.

As for "listeners are more discriminating in mono", well, if we're trying to find the best value for money, doesn't this nullify the test? Listen in mono, and the results may show an audible improvement (achieved by spending more, maybe) which is inaudible in stereo, and therefore is a waste of money.


I am not sure what you are saying here. Surely, if you were to accept that results of mono tests "track" those of stereo tests, only with less statistical variation between different observers, they would be useful (yes, I realise you don't accept it, but if). Decreasing the variance is one thing, decreasing the mean another.

Quote
Don't get me wrong - I think these experiments are wonderful - I bet that listening blind (rather than sighted) improves the quality of the results 100x more than listening in mono (rather than in stereo) diminishes the quality of the results.

In my own limited experience however, it is the speaker/room interaction that causes me the most problems. To my ears, different rooms (+ speaker placements in those rooms) sound more different than different speakers...


This is true in my experience, too. And using a single speaker will drastically change this. So a good point.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #89 –
Quote from: analog scott on
You cite your experience which clearly has no advantage over my experience


Scott, that your experience is more or less advantageous than someone elses experiences is not a given.


You started this subtread with the following:

Quote
How is it that my experience as an owner of electrostatic speakers are "assumptions" and your experience as someone who has not had that experience...is "experience?"


Let me address that question by recalling that you recently posted the contents of your system here, and  if memory serves, your system included an incredible number of items that are well-known to be audio jewelry - audio components that cannot possibly enchance sound quality. Please correct me if I misremembered that.

From that information Scott, we must conclude that very many of your so-called experiences with audio components are highly likely to be based on false assumptions and not based on actual reliably-heard expereinces.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #90 –
Quote from: aclo on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: aclo on
Well, I haven't actually read the papers Olive mentions, but he says that:
a) mono test results track stereo results b) listeners are more discriminating in mono

do you not believe these? or if you do, do you have a reason to ignore them? because, if the mono results do track the stereo results, just with less "noise", it would seem reasonable to use mono tests, or not?


I haven't really thought about it before reading this thread, so in terms of what works when developing speakers, I'm happy to defer to those who actually do it.

However, "mono test results track stereo results" - well, yes, kind of. I'm sure I can build a speaker where this doesn't work! I only have to paint the red terminal black, and the black terminal red, on one of a pair of speakers and we all know what will happen. one speaker listening = great. two speaker listening = no bass! There are also speaker designs with side firing drivers - is anyone seriously suggesting they sound or measure the same in Sean's speaker changer as they do toed-in near-ish to the corner of a room?


The above are either straw man or excluded-middle arguments depending on how you take them.


Quote
Don't get me wrong - I think these experiments are wonderful - I bet that listening blind (rather than sighted) improves the quality of the results 100x more than listening in mono (rather than in stereo) diminishes the quality of the results.


While I don't want to diminish the value of bias controls, it is a fact that bias controls often become less important the more audible the differences are.  Bias controls have produced their most compelling results in those cases where there were no actual audible differences, those where the perception of audible differences was completely based on listener bias.

You have to ask yourself what occurs when you put the second speaker into the room.  The speaker by itself rarely makes much of a difference until you apply a signal to it.  One you apply a signal to the second speaker the consequences diverge depending on whether the signals applied to the speakers correlate with each other. So immediately, you've added a relevant, highly audible variable that does not depend on the speakers at all.

To summarize, if you listen to just one speaker then its sound is dependent on the speaker itself and how it interacts with the room. If you add a second speaker, the sound of the pair of speakers is dependent on each speaker and how it interacts with the room times two, plus the nature and degree of the correlation between the signals applied to the speakers and how it interacts with the room. 

In short, adding the second speaker increases the dependencies on things other than the speaker from 1 to 4 or 5 depending on how you count.

I thing that the thing about mono comparisons that people react to the most is our general lack of familiarity with listening in mono.  IME one quickly adjusts to this and starts appreciating the ease of making comparisons with fewer dependencies that don't directly relate to the speaker.


Quote
In my own limited experience however, it is the speaker/room interaction that causes me the most problems. To my ears, different rooms (+ speaker placements in those rooms) sound more different than different speakers...



I completely agree with that. However, I don't see this fact as working against mono comparisons. Instead I count the variables this creates and find that listening in mono simplifies the comparison. Try it, you may like it!  I do.


Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #91 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
However, "mono test results track stereo results" - well, yes, kind of. I'm sure I can build a speaker where this doesn't work! I only have to paint the red terminal black, and the black terminal red, on one of a pair of speakers and we all know what will happen. one speaker listening = great. two speaker listening = no bass! There are also speaker designs with side firing drivers - is anyone seriously suggesting they sound or measure the same in Sean's speaker changer as they do toed-in near-ish to the corner of a room?

I think it's unwise to quantify X by measuring Y, just because "X tracks Y" pretty well in most situations. More importantly, if you're going to publish these results, it opens them up to easy and obvious criticism.

As for "listeners are more discriminating in mono", well, if we're trying to find the best value for money, doesn't this nullify the test? Listen in mono, and the results may show an audible improvement (achieved by spending more, maybe) which is inaudible in stereo, and therefore is a waste of money.

If you are trying to make a weather forecast for Europe and find that measuring the pressure in India historically has been a better predictor than using previous measurements of the weather in Europe, what method would you choose?

I have just "accepted" that mono listening tests gives less measurement noise. I did not do any tests of my own and did not try to understand those citations that led to this. If listening in mono really means that the same expected conclusions can be found after 3 hours instead of 6, I am all for it. If listening to dry dull recordings of tamburine instead of reall, engaging music mean faster, more robust conclusions, I am all for it.

-k

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #92 –
Quote from: aclo on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on


As for "listeners are more discriminating in mono", well, if we're trying to find the best value for money, doesn't this nullify the test? Listen in mono, and the results may show an audible improvement (achieved by spending more, maybe) which is inaudible in stereo, and therefore is a waste of money.


I am not sure what you are saying here. Surely, if you were to accept that results of mono tests "track" those of stereo tests, only with less statistical variation between different observers, they would be useful (yes, I realise you don't accept it, but if). Decreasing the variance is one thing, decreasing the mean another.


OK I later realised that you took "more discriminating" to mean, essentially, "harder to please" (ie, they marked speakers down when listened to in mono vs listening in stereo). I took it to mean "there was less variance between different listener's ratings in mono than there was in stereo".

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #93 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: aclo on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: aclo on
Well, I haven't actually read the papers Olive mentions, but he says that:
a) mono test results track stereo results b) listeners are more discriminating in mono

do you not believe these? or if you do, do you have a reason to ignore them? because, if the mono results do track the stereo results, just with less "noise", it would seem reasonable to use mono tests, or not?


I haven't really thought about it before reading this thread, so in terms of what works when developing speakers, I'm happy to defer to those who actually do it.

However, "mono test results track stereo results" - well, yes, kind of. I'm sure I can build a speaker where this doesn't work! I only have to paint the red terminal black, and the black terminal red, on one of a pair of speakers and we all know what will happen. one speaker listening = great. two speaker listening = no bass! There are also speaker designs with side firing drivers - is anyone seriously suggesting they sound or measure the same in Sean's speaker changer as they do toed-in near-ish to the corner of a room?


The above are either straw man or excluded-middle arguments depending on how you take them.


Quote
Don't get me wrong - I think these experiments are wonderful - I bet that listening blind (rather than sighted) improves the quality of the results 100x more than listening in mono (rather than in stereo) diminishes the quality of the results.


While I don't want to diminish the value of bias controls, it is a fact that bias controls often become less important the more audible the differences are.  Bias controls have produced their most compelling results in those cases where there were no actual audible differences, those where the perception of audible differences was completely based on listener bias.

You have to ask yourself what occurs when you put the second speaker into the room.  The speaker by itself rarely makes much of a difference until you apply a signal to it.  One you apply a signal to the second speaker the consequences diverge depending on whether the signals applied to the speakers correlate with each other. So immediately, you've added a relevant, highly audible variable that does not depend on the speakers at all.

To summarize, if you listen to just one speaker then its sound is dependent on the speaker itself and how it interacts with the room. If you add a second speaker, the sound of the pair of speakers is dependent on each speaker and how it interacts with the room times two, plus the nature and degree of the correlation between the signals applied to the speakers and how it interacts with the room. 

In short, adding the second speaker increases the dependencies on things other than the speaker from 1 to 4 or 5 depending on how you count.

I thing that the thing about mono comparisons that people react to the most is our general lack of familiarity with listening in mono.  IME one quickly adjusts to this and starts appreciating the ease of making comparisons with fewer dependencies that don't directly relate to the speaker.


Quote
In my own limited experience however, it is the speaker/room interaction that causes me the most problems. To my ears, different rooms (+ speaker placements in those rooms) sound more different than different speakers...



I completely agree with that. However, I don't see this fact as working against mono comparisons. Instead I count the variables this creates and find that listening in mono simplifies the comparison. Try it, you may like it!  I do.


While I appreciate you attributing all those wise words to me, I didn't actually write them

I agree with you, but I think that his position amounts to: speakers and room are inseparable in reality, so isolating one of the two won't necessarily give a meaningful result.

(PS: I left all the quotes in place on purpose, otherwise my comment does not make sense)

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #94 –
Quote from: aclo on
Speakers and room are inseparable in reality, so isolating one of the two won't necessarily give a meaningful result.

This statement contradicts what Sean has found in controlled listening tests. If you have not done any of your own tests, as per TOS#8, I don't think you're in a position to make such statements.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #95 –
Quote from: Notat on
Quote from: aclo on
Speakers and room are inseparable in reality, so isolating one of the two won't necessarily give a meaningful result.

This statement contradicts what Sean has found in controlled listening tests. If you have not done any of your own tests, as per TOS#8, I don't think you're in a position to make such statements.


But what I actually wrote was: "I think that his position amounts to: speakers and room are inseparable in reality, so isolating one of the two won't necessarily give a meaningful result."

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #96 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
You cite your experience which clearly has no advantage over my experience


Scott, that your experience is more or less advantageous than someone elses experiences is not a given.


You started this subtread with the following:

Quote
How is it that my experience as an owner of electrostatic speakers are "assumptions" and your experience as someone who has not had that experience...is "experience?"


Let me address that question by recalling that you recently posted the contents of your system here, and  if memory serves, your system included an incredible number of items that are well-known to be audio jewelry - audio components that cannot possibly enchance sound quality. Please correct me if I misremembered that.

From that information Scott, we must conclude that very many of your so-called experiences with audio components are highly likely to be based on false assumptions and not based on actual reliably-heard expereinces.



The issue was whether or not customers of ML or other electrostatic speakers were duly informed on the nature of the sweet spot. What does the rest of my system have to do with anything in regards to my experience in being duly informed as an actual person who bought electrostatic speakers from a dealer and has dealt with two other dealers in regards to electrostatic speakers since then? What does it have to do with my discussions over the years with many other owners of electrostatic speakers? What audio "jewelry" are you refering to? The diamond stylus of my cartridge is an actual functional part, not jewelry. Can't think of anything else you might be refering to. Do I also need to cite the multiple logical fallacies contained in your so called "must" conclusion?

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #97 –
Quote from: analog scott on
What audio "jewelry" are you refering to? The diamond stylus of my cartridge is an actual functional part, not jewelry. Can't think of anything else you might be refering to.

Not sure what particular piece of jewelry in the collection Arnie might be referring to, but since this thread involves the soundfield generated by loudspeakers, could you tell us specifically how the "Bybee Pro Filter" and "VPI Brick" physically effect the soundwaves emanating from the Soundlabs?
TIA
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #98 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: analog scott on
What audio "jewelry" are you refering to? The diamond stylus of my cartridge is an actual functional part, not jewelry. Can't think of anything else you might be refering to.

Not sure what particular piece of jewelry in the collection Arnie might be referring to, but since this thread involves the soundfield generated by loudspeakers, could you tell us specifically how the "Bybee Pro Filter" and "VPI Brick" physically effect the soundwaves emanating from the Soundlabs?
TIA


The Bybee filter was something I tried on a whim since i was able to get one for very little money compared to it's retail price. Can't say that it made any difference whatsoever. I sold it for a little more than my purchase price. The VPI bricks (two of them) were given to me. I'm not sure if they make that much of a difference or not but they sit on my Vandersteen subwooofer. Without them my two Emmy's that also sit on the subwoofer tend to ring when the bass gets loud. With the VPI bricks the on top of the sub the sub's top seems to be damped enough to stop the ringing. I don't like hearing the Emmys ring so that does make an audible improvement. I suppose the Emmys could be seen as audio jewelry since they sit on the sub, and are gold plated and very shiny??? I never thought of them as an actual part of the system though.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #99 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I so strongly disagree with much that has been said lately about evaluating speakers that I'm tempted to start a thread called "Is there such a thing as a center channel speaker". The point being that While we talk about speakers as being center channel speakers and main speakers and surround and ambience speakers, those are more terms of art and merchandising and conveniece than technical definitions or requirements.

For example, one of the most satisfying and revealing systems for listening to stereo recordings that I know of is nominally a surround system with 9 identical nearly full-range speakers and 2 subwoofers with gargantuan bass extension and dynamic range. Its owner who is merely an AES Fellow, obviously doesn't believe that a no-compromise audio system needs to have speakers whose design is different for the various roles, other than subwoofers. He's hardly unique. Indeed, he's following the same game plan as Sean.

Thank you Arnold. This clarifies things for me a great deal.