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: Speakers vs amps and cd players (Read 74677 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #50 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Quote
The relevant qualifier here is "good loudspeakers". Earl's ideas about what constitute good loudspeakers is easy to discern - it is what he sells which is high end both in terms of construction and pricing.


Define "High End"?



I see two high ends in audio. One actually makes some sense - it is composed of very high performing stuff.

The other high end is just plain whatever the traffic provided by easily bullied, poorly informed people with more money than brains waste their obviously too easily obtained money on in order to get bragging rights. 

Paradigm - high performing high end. Wilson Audio - for the bragging rights market.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #51 –
Quote from: Rich B on
You seem to be demonizing companies that sell expensive speakers. What false claims are you talking about? What innuendo? Are you sure you aren't just paranoid about the high-end industry?

 
You sure you aren't suckered by it?  Would you say it's wrong to 'demonize' a >$10K loudspeaker that boasts of its performance/perfection, yet 'measures' abysmally?

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #52 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Quote
If properly reviewed, everybody who gives any credibility to good technical tests should be asking "Why the outlandish price?". Reality is that high end speaker companies are almost all merely systems integrators. They produce no raw drivers of their own. They have no lock on some secret loudspeaker technology. They buy their drivers from the same production houses as everybody else can. A few have captive production facilities, but again they have no special magic that can't be bought on the open market. Their speakers are not technically exceptional in any way that they seem to be willing to actually demonstrate with anything from opinions from people who effectively shill for them. The outlandish pricing is based on what they can bully the market to pay through innuendo and outright false claims.


You seem to be demonizing companies that sell expensive speakers.


A speaker with ultra-low distortion and ultra-high dynamic range have an inherent right to sell expensive speakers.  One of the  problems with people like Atkinson is that their technical tests go out of their way to provide zero evidence about either of those issues.

Quote
What false claims are you talking about?


False claims to above average sound quality.

Quote
What innuendo?



The innuendo that they aren't gouging their customers.

Quote
Are you sure you aren't just paranoid about the high-end industry?


IMO there are two high end audio industries - the people who are actually trying to provide more value for more money, and the ones operating carnival side slows.

Obviously a guy who is trying to produce 130 dB SPL at < 10% THD is going to have need average pricing to have a business. But people like Sonus Faber that mark up their parts and production costs into the next universe are just playing mind games with their customer's money.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #53 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
[At this moment I am listening to some Britten. There is no way that if I were to play this in a dealers at any volume level, that it could be described as a "wall of noise", which tells me something about how other people judge a system, and what music they choose to listen to. I can only judge a system by turning the volume up to 'realistic', and I suspect that the Higher Authorities simply don't share my taste in music, and therefore couldn't hear what it is that I am listening for. They may pronounce that "low order distortion is inaudible" or "phase isn't important" but that may just be based on their taste in light jazz from the 1960s].


Well the question to you then is , how do you know that what *is* important to you,  is due to the level of 'low order distortion' or 'phase'?

Really, where the Higher Authorities who do *research* have the advantage is, they can describe the correlations between actual measured properties and actual listener responses.

You, and most of us, are typically just flailing about, trying to describe effects whose causes we don't know or just guess at... some of which effects may even be imaginary.    At the extreme we have the 'high end' reviewers who tend towards the flowery prose of wine tasting.  When challenged to explain what they mean, we get bollocks like this:

Pace, Rhythm, & Dynamics
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/23/index.html

and a mishmash of over-specific and under-specified, like this

Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary
http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-...ossary-glossary


(J Gordon Holt, to his credit, went out in a blaze of glory, scolding the 'audiophile' press for eschewing bias-controlled comparison)

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #54 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: krabapple on
This suggests to me that SO consider the audible effects of at least some nonlinear distortions on loudspeaker preference to be both real and worthy of further investigation.

Yes, he did say that, along with this: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/01/what...ations-are.html
Quote
1) The perception of loudspeaker sound quality is dominated by linear distortions, which can be accurately quantified and predicted using a set of comprehensive anechoic frequency response measurements.
2) Both trained and untrained listeners tend to prefer the most accurate loudspeakers when measured under controlled double-blind listening conditions.
3) The relationship between perception and measurement of nonlinear distortions is less well understood and needs further research. Popular specifications like Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) and Intermodulation Distortion (IM) do not accurately reflect the distortion’s audibility and effect on the perceived sound quality of the loudspeaker.

I don't think there was any misinterpretation by Earl, who was there...and has done his own investigations.
But hey, both SO and jj were at one time members here. Perhaps Arny could ask them directly, to avoid any risk of "inversion" (despite verbatim quotation).


This statement: The perception of loudspeaker sound quality is dominated by linear distortions, which can be accurately quantified and predicted using a set of comprehensive anechoic frequency response measurements (see my previous posting here)

Is true but does not exclude the influence of audible nonlinear distortion. Linear distortion has similar effects at any listening level. Nonlinear distortions of the most common kinds are by definition highly level dependent. 

There's a door that people like Rich B could come in through if they could master the vocabulary, which is to say that just because a speaker measures well exclusive of nonlinear distortion doesn't mean that their actual audible nonlinear distortion doesn't affect listening enjoyment.  Arguing that nonlinear distortion is never audible isn't realistic in a world that has 3.5" subwoofers that are speced to have response down to 25-30 Hz and also specs peak listening levels at 105 dB SPL.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #55 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Really, where the Higher Authorities who do *research* have the advantage is, they can describe the correlations between actual measured properties and actual listener responses.

This is partly true, but I think my question is reasonable: how do we prove that the research isn't 'circular' ie. that the choice of the listening material and 'subjects' is always going to be subjective.

Quote
You, and most of us, are typically just flailing about, trying to describe effects whose causes we don't know or just guess at... some of which effects may even be imaginary.    At the extreme we have the 'high end' reviewers who tend towards the flowery prose of wine tasting.

But my approach is not to believe the Higher Authorities, or the reviewers. Nor is it to pay attention only to 'measurements'. My approach would be to start with a clean slate: what system is likely to give the most accurate reproduction? Researching existing technology using listening panels and so on is still "flailing about" as I see it. So I would dismiss vinyl and tape out of hand, regardless of the reactions some Higher Authority found it evoked in their choice of listeners listening to someone's choice of music. Digital is better by design, and I don't need to hear the alternatives. My attitude to speakers is the same: DSP active. No need to test them against anything else. They are simply more accurate.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #56 –
Quote
I see two high ends in audio. One actually makes some sense - it is composed of very high performing stuff.


That sounds very vague. How do you know when high-end is actually high-end?

Quote
The other high end is just plain whatever the traffic provided by easily bullied, poorly informed people with more money than brains waste their obviously too easily obtained money on in order to get bragging rights.


So high-end is, on one hand, composed of high performing stuff, and on the other hand, high-end is just expensive. So you think a high price is somehow bullying people and means that people are poorly informed. Just because you can't afford the high-end doesn't make it a waste. What system do YOU have?

Quote
Paradigm - high performing high end. Wilson Audio - for the bragging rights market.


Based on what????? You haven't shown that Paradigm is even high performing. You just seem highly prejudiced against high-end brands and have clear biases towards Paradigm for some reason!

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #57 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
Quote from: krabapple on
Really, where the Higher Authorities who do *research* have the advantage is, they can describe the correlations between actual measured properties and actual listener responses.

This is partly true, but I think my question is reasonable: how do we prove that the research isn't 'circular' ie. that the choice of the listening material and 'subjects' is always going to be subjective.



Is that your conclusion after having read the methods sections of the research papers ?


Quote
Quote
You, and most of us, are typically just flailing about, trying to describe effects whose causes we don't know or just guess at... some of which effects may even be imaginary.    At the extreme we have the 'high end' reviewers who tend towards the flowery prose of wine tasting.


But my approach is not to believe the Higher Authorities, or the reviewers. Nor is it to pay attention only to 'measurements'. My approach would be to start with a clean slate: what system is likely to give the most accurate reproduction? Researching existing technology using listening panels and so on is still "flailing about" as I see it. So I would dismiss vinyl and tape out of hand, regardless of the reactions some Higher Authority found it evoked in their choice of listeners listening to someone's choice of music. Digital is better by design, and I don't need to hear the alternatives. My attitude to speakers is the same: DSP active. No need to test them against anything else. They are simply more accurate.



When you prioritize ' the most accurate reproduction' you are prioritizing *measurements*, whether you realize it or not.  And the 'higher authorities' that made them.  So who, exactly, are you rebelling against?



Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #58 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Rich B on
Define "High End"?

Rich, you were supposed to tell us what a "high end" speaker is! Help me out man, I did my best with the whole FR thing for you, which you hopefully now understand. 
Would a Revel Salon qualify?


High end : exclusive, expensive, superior construction, better finishes, more sophisticated drivers, extended frequency extension.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #59 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Is that your conclusion after having read the methods sections of the research papers ?

My attitude is that simply having, and stating a methodology doesn't automatically make it science, or make it objective. If we are talking about listening to music, then it is automatically subjective to some extent. If a research paper states "A selection of typical music tracks was chosen at random", or "The listeners were allowed to make their own music selections" it doesn't make it science. I was just reading a piece by Higher Authority Sean Olive about preferring the use of 'trained' listeners for audio evaluation. His organisation trains its listeners using a special program of sessions where listeners learn to identify characteristics of processed "music". It seems to me, there are questions prompted by this: no matter how scientific it appears, there is an element of circularity. (As an example)

Quote
When you prioritize ' the most accurate reproduction' you are prioritizing *measurements*, whether you realize it or not.  And the 'higher authorities' that made them.  So who, exactly, are you rebelling against?

But even if I was prioritising "warm fuzzy tone" it could still be expressed as measurements, so whatever I prioritise, it can always be interpreted as measurements of some form. I didn't realise that we had to thank the Higher Authorities for sanctioning 'accuracy' for our use!

Edit: it's like the endless arguments about which is better: MP3 or AAC? etc. etc. Going on about the science of perceptual coding, masking etc. The answer is: you're an audiophile. You don't have to listen to any of them! I feel the same about discussions over whether it's best to use a second order crossover and reverse the tweeter, or blah blah blah. Or use this oil on our bearings. Or how best to clean an LP. What do we do when tape sheds oxide? The answer is, we don't need to worry about any of it! Science and technology have come to our aid, and we don't need to prove the new technology is better with subjective listening tests. We can just examine how it works, and confirm its superiority by looking at a few measurements done by somebody else, and then concentrate on the really interesting stuff.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #60 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
My attitude is that simply having, and stating a methodology doesn't automatically make it science, or make it objective.

What it does is to make it possible for someone else to repeat the same experiment and either verify or refute the results (scientific method 101).

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #61 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: Green Marker on
My attitude is that simply having, and stating a methodology doesn't automatically make it science, or make it objective.
What it does is to make it possible for someone else to repeat the same experiment and either verify or refute the results (scientific method 101).
IMO there's a justified bit of skepticism whether "listener's preference" can be reliable. Another method would be to compare a speaker to a reference sound (another speaker or sound source), which would come closer to our beloved ABX testing. I also wonder if preference changes a lot over time (years, decades, centuries, like fashion).

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #62 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: Green Marker on
My attitude is that simply having, and stating a methodology doesn't automatically make it science, or make it objective.

What it does is to make it possible for someone else to repeat the same experiment and either verify or refute the results (scientific method 101).

You miss my point: when it comes to questions of whether it is possible to hear certain types of distortion when reproducing musical signals, the choice of which musical signals we use may affect the outcome of the experiment. Repeating the same flawed experiment and getting the same result doesn't mean that the results are then 'scientific' and universally applicable to all listeners with all types of music. People who believe they understand 'scientific method 101' are the ones who often confuse cause with correlation, and so on, and can't spot the subjectivity in a part of an experiment. If the 'audio scientists' and 'peers' reviewing their work, all have standard audiophile musical taste, then I can see how they could all conclude that if distortion X cannot be picked up by listeners against a wide variety [of mono, light jazz-based] music [played at a moderate volume on a passive speaker system] then it can be declared benign. Or rather that "their findings suggest that relatively high levels of distortion X are completely inaudible in musical signals". Which we can then parrot as a copper-bottomed universally-applicable scientific truth in this forum ad nauseam!

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #63 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
Or rather that "their findings suggest that relatively high levels of distortion X are completely inaudible in musical signals".
There are a few interesting online listening tests on the Klippel website, experts in loudspeaker (unit) measurements. The results seem to indicate that (anonymous?) listeners can hear loudspeaker distortion far below real speaker levels. The tests use artificially created distortion at various levels to simulate real speaker behavior. This method sounds plausible, but I don't know if it's widely accepted.


btw, I've always wondered about the high score at the lowest distortion, to the right. Golden ears, cheating ?

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #64 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
btw, I've always wondered about the high score at the lowest distortion, to the right. Golden ears, cheating ?

It could be that a small number of people repeat the test over and over and home in on the distortion..? I found that my 'performance' went up once I realised I could press 'play' for each sample without having to go via 'stop', meaning I could compare the first couple of seconds immediately without a gap. That way it was quicker and avoided 'fatigue' - which I was definitely beginning to feel. But then, the test for me became that of identifying distortion within a two second sample of a particular song in mono at moderate volume using the cheapo headphones at hand - and may have ended up being that for most people. Could the results of such an experiment then be extrapolated to conclude that distortion type X is audible or inaudible at Y% in "music"? I imagine it could be! But whether that would be justified would be a different matter.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #65 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
Quote from: krabapple on
Is that your conclusion after having read the methods sections of the research papers ?

My attitude is that simply having, and stating a methodology doesn't automatically make it science, or make it objective. If we are talking about listening to music, then it is automatically subjective to some extent. If a research paper states "A selection of typical music tracks was chosen at random", or "The listeners were allowed to make their own music selections" it doesn't make it science. I was just reading a piece by Higher Authority Sean Olive about preferring the use of 'trained' listeners for audio evaluation. His organisation trains its listeners using a special program of sessions where listeners learn to identify characteristics of processed "music". It seems to me, there are questions prompted by this: no matter how scientific it appears, there is an element of circularity. (As an example)


I see a big misunderstanding about the nature of scientific investigations, especially in the area of relevance.

If something is investigated and all possible controls are thrown to the wind (e.g. your typical audiophile so-called listening test) then there's not a chance of it being scientific. The so-called data is actually noise. Flee the scene and save your sanity!

If something is investigated and reasonable controls are used and documented then it is scientific, but it still needs to be investigated further for its relevance and applicability to a particular question of interest.  A positive outcome for that evaluation is not necessarily a slam dunk. The failure of a particular investigation to be applicable to every question that may exists in someone's mind does not necessarily detract from its basic scientific nature.

Human bias is impossible to totally remove from any non-trivial investigation, but knowing what those biases are can be very helpful.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #66 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
You miss my point: when it comes to questions of whether it is possible to hear certain types of distortion when reproducing musical signals, the choice of which musical signals we use may affect the outcome of the experiment.


The above completely understates the true situation. The observation is in fact a truism. It has been known for decades that the choice of which musical signals we use profoundly affects the outcome of the experiment.  Conversations about choice of musical signals fill the annals of subjective audio tests. 

The fact that this is a point that someone seems to want to argue this only shows a lack of proper background in doing subjective experiments related to audio.

Quote
Repeating the same flawed experiment and getting the same result...


The error here is presuming that the fact that the choice of which musical signals we use may affect the outcome of the experiment represents some kind of a serious flaw. It is just another influence that needs to be managed. Examples of effective management of this kind of influences are in the literature of audio science including HA.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #67 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I see a big misunderstanding about the nature of scientific investigations, especially in the area of relevance.

If something is investigated and all possible controls are thrown to the wind (e.g. your typical audiophile so-called listening test) then there's not a chance of it being scientific. The so-called data is actually noise. Flee the scene and save your sanity!

If something is investigated and reasonable controls are used and documented then it is scientific, but it still needs to be investigated further for its relevance and applicability to a particular question of interest.  A positive outcome for that evaluation is not necessarily a slam dunk. The failure of a particular investigation to be applicable to every question that may exists in someone's mind does not necessarily detract from its basic scientific nature.

Human bias is impossible to totally remove from any non-trivial investigation, but knowing what those biases are can be very helpful.


No, I don't think I misunderstand. Whether or not the Higher Authorities (and we) are well aware of the non-slam dunk-ness of the work, the people who quote their 'findings' are often not.
 

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #68 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
No, I don't think I misunderstand. Whether or not the Higher Authorities (and we) are well aware of the non-slam dunk-ness of the work, the people who quote their 'findings' are often not.


Since 99.9% or more of the so-called findings are based on totally uncontrolled sighted evaluations, the people proffering them obviously don't understand how irrelevant their so-called findings are to any reasonable question about audio. They obviously think they are acting in good faith. They even get a little testy when the true relevant facts are pointed out to them. ;-)

When did you discover this?

I've known it for about 40 years.

Can we move on from obsessing over truisms?

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #69 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The observation is in fact a truism.

Well at least I've said something we can all agree on!

Quote
The fact that this is a point that someone seems to want to argue this only shows a lack of proper background in doing subjective experiments related to audio.

What I am wanting to argue on, is not the validity of subjective audio experiments, but the fact that some of them are deemed necessary at all. "Should we add distortion to audio signals deliberately? Let's do an experiment!". "Should we place stones at the corners of our amplifiers? Let's do an experiment!". Both are 'science' if we say they are. But deciding on whether to take any notice of them can be done without wading through the pages of the dubious 'science' and statistics that they would produce.

Quote
The error here is presuming that the fact that the choice of which musical signals we use may affect the outcome of the experiment represents some kind of a serious flaw. It is just another influence that needs to be managed. Examples of effective management of this kind of influences are in the literature of audio science including HA.

You're implicitly assuming that what goes on in audiophile trials is 'science'. In a way the definition is no better than the definition of art. "It is what we say it is". If you pick holes in our experiment then that is merely science in action. And if we then pick holes in your experiment then that, too, is also science in action. Everything is science as long as we say it is (and define our assumptions, describe our method blah blah).

Who can say that an "influence has been managed effectively"? That sounds very subjective!

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #70 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Can we move on from obsessing over truisms?

Sorry. This branch of the discussion stemmed from my earlier objections to discussions that do nothing but quote from Higher Authorities - which are, in themselves, nothing but a form of endless regurgitation of truisms.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #71 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
True and a pity, suggesting that Atkinson sees no value to any measurements of nonlinear distortion due to speakers. IOW he thinks that they all sound the same in this regard.

The measurements at the site I referenced suggest otherwise.


Rather than continue to play Arnieball, which a lot like Amirball aka Calvinball, why don't you just spell out what relevance the Soundstage NRC anechoic THD steady state measurements (you posted above) have perceptually?
Maybe once we establish that, we can see why you're bashing JA for not performing them...with his quasi-anechoic measurement setup.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
"One form of nonlinearity, crossover distortion, is detectable at .1% THD"

In fact crossover distortion is not detectable at 0.1% THD with normal musical recordings as the sound source.

I know of no proper DBTs ever being done to produce evidence about this claim, but if you download this file, you can use the FOOBAR2000 ABX tool to listen for yourself and present your results if you dare:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ebrlo639h99git/c...20joni.zip?dl=0

I have a better idea Amir, excuse me...Arnie. Why don't you have your friend Earl take the test and verify his threshold claim. You know, the guy whose position I had inverted, not Arnie, in Arnieworld.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #72 –
Quote from: krabapple on
And I'm not understanding the second part or what you wrote --Geddes was there?  *Where*?


C'mon now, the link I provided! 
Here again:  http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/01/what...ations-are.html

Quote
The panelists included myself, Steve Temme (Listen Inc.), Dr. Earl Geddes (GedLee), Laurie Fincham (THX), Mike Klasco (Menlo Scientific), and Dr. Floyd Toole (former VP Acoustic Engineering at Harman), who served as the panel moderator. After about 30 minutes, a consensus was quickly reached on the following points:


Quote from: krabapple on
If he only means typical THD and IM specs, that's not quite the same claim. And I don't think Sean would phrase it as strongly as Earl does..

Well, rather than continue the guesswork, we could ask him. 
My reading is that of the above (THD/IM). Both think non-linear is possibly worthy of further investigation.
So exactly what is JA to be bashed for, for not performing "distortion" measurements (my contention with Arnmir)?? What distortion measurements? On what basis?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #73 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
I've always wondered about the high score at the lowest distortion, to the right. Golden ears, cheating ?

Hah. I took that test myself many, many moons ago, managed to crack into the -40s IIRC (I'll have to dig up the screenshot). I was astounded others could hear well over 10db lower!!....until I realized there was a glitch in the tracks that allowed identification. I think it was pulled shortly after. Is it back now?
Btw, all of those online tests can be gamed. As the AVS wrecks demonstrated. Take the outlier results with a grain of salt.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #74 –
Quote from: Rich B on
High end : exclusive, expensive, superior construction, better finishes, more sophisticated drivers, extended frequency extension.

Whew!! Thank goodness sound has nothing to do with it! Hey, I have a chance now 
What about looks? Or is that covered by finishes? I would have thought that would be #1 !!
Thanks I appreciate your input.

cheers,

AJ

Loudspeaker manufacturer