In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back [Archive]

Audio Empire

May 11th 10, 08:23 PM

On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
>> instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the
>> $1K
>> level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and
>> that's
>> the Magnepan MMG at $599.
>
>> I certainly hear artifacts in lossy compression, but I wouldn't exactly
>> characterize them as a crackling noise, I would say that it's more like a
>> buzzing bee-like distortion that rides the waveform. It's only audible
>> during
>> low level passages and during transitions between loud and soft passages
>> (and
>> vice versa) and then only on headphones and very loud speaker listening.
>> As
>> background music and in the car, lossy compression artifacts are lost in
>> the
>> ambient noise.
>
> I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
> into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
> used by the writer.

I don't need a DBT to tell me what I hear. I'm not comparing anything to
anything here, so I cannot see what good "unbiased" listening tests would do.
It's not a question of whether this sounds different from that, it's a
question of whether these artifacts are present or not, and if they are
present, are they audible? I can hear them. I acknowledge that certain kinds
of music effectively mask these artifacts, and I acknowledge, that ambient
noise in the listening environment will do likewise. I'll also give you that
most of the iPod generation doesn't seem to care that the artifacts exist,
and that possibly, many people have never developed the listening skills to
discern these artifacts. Non of that alters the fact that some of us do hear
them and find them objectionable. I for one would much rather put-up with the
tics and pops in an LP than listen to the "correlated" distortion of an MP3.
Apparently you feel just the opposite.

> Many misapprehensions about both MP3s and quality inexpensive speakers can
> be dispelled with blind listening. I've said enough about misapprehensions
> about quality MP3s lately so I won't repeat myself.

I don't have any misapprehensions about MP3. For the types of music that I
listen to and the way I listen, MP3 is inadequate - even at the higher
bit-rates. Even Sony's ATRAC lossy compression algorithm was better and less
objectionable than MP3.

> I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000 speaker
> system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
> European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
> $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
> listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based on
> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs of
> speakers sounded very, very good.

I'll bet that the 400 mini-monitors don't have as much or as good quality
bass as did the $12000 system nor could it load the room like a big system.

Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like
amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small
mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as possible
- I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that
has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast.

I can name a bunch of small, inexpensive, so called mini-monitors that sound
excellent on small scale works. They image great, and can be delightful to
listen to. But don't play large scale orchestral works on them, or try to get
them to sound right on rock-'n-roll played at high SPLs with a driving kick
drum providing the beat. Very unsatisfying, I would suspect.
>

Audio Empire

May 11th 10, 09:40 PM

[Moderators' note: Recently some posts have been approved with toned
down curse words as in this one. Please stop using them from now on.
Those words are potentially inflammable and will no longer be
accepted. -- deb]

On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?ref=busin
>
>> "The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
>> decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
>> symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
>> new flat-screen TV today.
>
> I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if not more
> sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems were pretty bad sounding by
> modern standards. It took a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and
> expensive hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be compared to
> a good portable digital player and a nice pair of IEMs., or a quality but
> still relatively small sub/sat speaker system.

That depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, speaker technology in
the 1950's was very primitive. People had Karlson Kabinets with big 12" or
15" Altec Lansing or Electrovoice drivers in them or Klipschorns - and they
still didn't have any low-end. cone tweeters were mostly just small speakers
with a capacitor hung on them to keep the lows out, or they were compression
horns like the Altec 500 Hz treble horns (awful).

But amps and pre-amps were pretty good. I've a friend with a pair of Dynaco
Mark III 60-Watt tube "monoblocs" and a Harman-Kardon Citation 1 stereo
preamp driving a pair of Magnepan MG-3.6s. The system sounds fine.

Certainly, in those days, the best signal source was live FM (vinyl records
could be excellent, but the players were primitive and couldn't get the most
from them). It sounded magnificent, even if it was in mono. Much better than
any FM station today. First of all, FM stations rarely do live concerts any
more and if/when they do, they are crippled by signal compression and
brick-wall limiting. In the 50's and most of 60's, FM stations were so far
and few between (even in large metropolitan markets) that while laws for
over-modulating did exist, nobody took them seriously (even the FCC) there
was simply no harm in over-modulating your transmitter as there were no
closely adjacent stations for you to interfere with. Unlike today's crowded
FM dial where overly processed audio is pumped into transmitters crowded
tooth-by-jowl against each other on the dial.

> Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is very stylish in certain
> circles.

Some people demand more than others and don't mind paying for it. This is a
double-edged sword, however. Because audio is technical and most audio
hobbyists aren't, this gives rise to a lot of unfortunate charlatanism that
seems rampant in the audio hobby. Things like "boutique" interconnects and
speaker cables, wood blocks placed on one's amp cover to make it "magically"
sound better, cable lifts to keep one's speaker cables up, off the carpet,
caps for one's unused RCA connections on their preamp (ostensibly to keep
them from drooling random KiloHertz, perhaps?) etc.

> During most of the 1950s just about everybody was limited to listening to
> mono vinyl. While there are great-sounding recordings from that era, most
> weren't (and still aren't) all that great. The good news is that many of
> their problems can be circumvented with skilled remastering. But, even so...

Some were so good that they haven't been equaled and careful remastering such
as that done by JVC shows just how good both some of these early recordings
and Redbook CD can sound. And as I said above, the best source in the 1950's
and '60's wasn't vinyl, but was, rather, live FM.

>> But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
>> which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
>> of scorn.""
>
> Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life! Stereos did become
> mainstream from the Vietnam era until home theater succeeded it as the
> mainstream. Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer SOTA.

Bull! Home audio without video might not be fashionable, but video does
NOTHING to enhance the listening experience. In my house my stereo and my
"home theater" aren't even in the same part of the house! When I watch
video, I watch video, when I listen to music, I listen to music and as far as
I'm concerned, they're (for the most part) mutually exclusive concepts.

> In Fremer's case, I wonder if he is generalizing from his own experiences,
> which must be unusual given his commitment (some might say obsession) with
> audio.

Who knows. He makes some good points though.

Audio Empire

May 11th 10, 11:56 PM

On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:23:25 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> On May 10, 6:06=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:01:48 -0700, jwvm wrote
>> (in article >):
>> Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive.
>
> So are bad speakers, and some especially bad ones are
> especially expensive.
>
>> For instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers
>> below about the $1K level
>
> There is no intrinsic reason fr this to be. The major
> cost components in a speaker are magnet assemblies,
> cabinets, profit and overhead (and the ordering is all
> over the map). Everything else seldom adds up to be
> equal to any of of these components.

I agree, but most expensive speakers are made by small companies and are the
result of small-scale economics. Plus a lot of high-end speakers use exotic
materials like carbon fiber and dense space-age resins for drivers and
cabinets. Wilson audio comes to mind here. Also, development costs get
amortized over far fewer units of any one model in small company as well. I
guess the analogous situation, cost wise, would be Ferrari. Ferrari cars are
outrageously expensive, If Ford built a car like a Ferrari, it would sell for
half the cost or less (they actually did. Back in the early 2000's Ford built
a modern re-interpretation of their 1960's era GT-40 race car. It was very
similar to build quality and performance to a Ferrari 360 Modena, but
list-priced for almost half. and that was still a limited production model).

Ed Seedhouse[_2_]

May 12th 10, 04:15 AM

On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a
$12,000 speaker
> system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
> European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
> $400 the pair.
>The listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred base=
d on
> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. =A0

I can believe this easily. In addition well under a thousand Canadian
dollars spent on a classic iPod and Sennheiser IE7 headphones produces
what, to my ears, is a genuinely high end sound. I am sure the equal
could easily be provided by less expensive equipment. In fact I
believe that Apple could provide genuinely high end sound from
headphones at very little extra cost if they cared to. Alas, they
don't, but I am fairly sure that they could if they wished.

Ed

Dick Pierce

May 12th 10, 04:22 AM

On May 11, 6:56=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:23:25 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
> (in article >):
> > There is no intrinsic reason fr this to be. The major
> > cost components in a speaker are magnet assemblies,
> > cabinets, profit and overhead (and the ordering is all
> > over the map). Everything else seldom adds up to be
> > equal to any of of these components.
>
> =A0I agree, but most expensive speakers are made by
> small companies and are the result of small-scale
> economics. Plus a lot of high-end speakers use exotic
> materials like carbon fiber and dense space-age resins
> for drivers and cabinets.

well, given that I am actually in that business, the materials
you list are NOT expensive at all, not in the quantities found
in loudspeakers. And, frankly, materials like carbon fiber
and "dense space-age resins" are simply not exotic in the
rest of the world. They might well be in high-end audio
circles, but that's because the high-end audio biz is late
to the party. I was specing off-the-shelf OEM carbon fiber
drivers 20 years ago, and B&W was doing kevlar drivers
35 years ago.

> Also, development costs get amortized over far fewer
> units of any one model in small company as well.

Again, being in the business, the amortized development
costs are a small part of the total cost of pretty much
ANY speaker, be they from large or small companies.
And, by the way, those are sunken costs, not amortized
costs. You spent them up front and you don't get to pay
them over time. Now, maybe you get to use your current
cash flow to fund the next experiment, but you don't get
to travel back in time.

Plus the fact that most of these high end speaker
companies,despite what you might read, do NOT have
very large engineering budgets.

Like I said, the MAJOR cost elements of speakers are
magnet structure, cabinet, overhead and profit. When
I said "everything else seldom adds up to be equal to
any one of these components," that included what
you're talking about here.

And it's still my contention having been intimately
involved in the business for a long time, that there
is no intrinsic physical basis behind your assertion
that "there is little decent in the way of speakers
below about the $1K level." If there is truth to your
claim, it's due to grotesque incompetence, cultural
biases, add the fact that the market is so small
that no competent practitioner could afford to be in
this business, leaving the hucksters, cranks,
charlatans and loonies to run loose in the high-end
business, always encouraged by the rabid blitherings
of their high-end magazine groupies

If Fremer believes "stereo has become an object of
scorn," he has but himself and his ilk to blame. And
while we're at it, we can line up people Lumely, Pearson,
Cardas, Tice, mPingo, and the rest of the blithering
hordes against the proverbial wall.

MP3 ain't to blame for the decline of stereo, the high-end
yahoos are.

Arny Krueger

May 12th 10, 02:28 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
>>> instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the
>>> $1K
>>> level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and
>>> that's
>>> the Magnepan MMG at $599.
>>
>>> I certainly hear artifacts in lossy compression, but I wouldn't exactly
>>> characterize them as a crackling noise, I would say that it's more like
>>> a
>>> buzzing bee-like distortion that rides the waveform. It's only audible
>>> during
>>> low level passages and during transitions between loud and soft passages
>>> (and
>>> vice versa) and then only on headphones and very loud speaker listening.
>>> As
>>> background music and in the car, lossy compression artifacts are lost in
>>> the
>>> ambient noise.
>>
>> I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
>> into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
>> used by the writer.

> I don't need a DBT to tell me what I hear.

Nobody does. A DBT can't possibly tell you what you hear.

The alternative to bias-controlled listening is to *hear* with your
prejudices fully engaged.

If you want to listen to the true quality of sound, then you must take
advantage of bias controlled tests.

If you want to reinforce your prejudices, then avoid bias controlled tests.

Arny Krueger

May 12th 10, 02:28 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:>
>
>> I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000
>> speaker
>> system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
>> European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
>> $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
>> listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based
>> on
>> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs
>> of
>> speakers sounded very, very good.
>
> So, what were the speakers?

Behringer B2031A

Harry Lavo

May 12th 10, 03:22 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:>
>>
>>> I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000
>>> speaker
>>> system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
>>> European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for
>>> under
>>> $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
>>> listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based
>>> on
>>> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both
>>> pairs
>>> of
>>> speakers sounded very, very good.
>>
>> So, what were the speakers?
>
> Behringer B2031A
>

That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the "big 'uns"? And what
were the musical selections, sources, and other equipment used? And what
type of rating system? And was it blind or double-blind?

Arny Krueger

May 12th 10, 03:25 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

> On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):

>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?ref=busin
>>
>>> "The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
>>> decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
>>> symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
>>> new flat-screen TV today.
>>
>> I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if not more
>> sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems were pretty bad sounding by
>> modern standards. It took a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and
>> expensive hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be compared
>> to
>> a good portable digital player and a nice pair of IEMs., or a quality but
>> still relatively small sub/sat speaker system.
>
> That depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, speaker technology
> in
> the 1950's was very primitive.

As was everything else about audio.

> People had Karlson Kabinets with big 12" or
> 15" Altec Lansing or Electrovoice drivers in them or Klipschorns - and
> they
> still didn't have any low-end. cone tweeters were mostly just small
> speakers
> with a capacitor hung on them to keep the lows out, or they were
> compression
> horns like the Altec 500 Hz treble horns (awful).

Actually, done right the Altec horns could sound pretty good. Ever hear a
pair of Altec A4s set up right? But, they were huge, they were expensive,
and they were not as good as their contemporary competition.

> But amps and pre-amps were pretty good.

By modern standards they were marginal at best. Frightfully expensive in
inflation-adjusted dollars, required a lot of maintenance, large, wasted
energy, a good amp with only modest power was very heavy. There were only a
tiny number of what we would call a medium-powered amplifier today,and
nothing beyond that.

> I've a friend with a pair of Dynaco
> Mark III 60-Watt tube "monoblocs" and a Harman-Kardon Citation 1 stereo
> preamp driving a pair of Magnepan MG-3.6s. The system sounds fine.

The Citation 1 preamp was reviewed by Audio and High Fidelity magazines in
the early 1960s, which is was no doubt when it was introduced. Therefore,
it is not a product that was available in the 1950s. Just because something
sounds "fine" does not make it competitive with its modern competition.

>> Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is very stylish in
>> certain
>> circles.

> Some people demand more than others and don't mind paying for it.

Some people pay more for the same or less, because they don't know better,
or because of their prejudices.

>> During most of the 1950s just about everybody was limited to listening to
>> mono vinyl. While there are great-sounding recordings from that era, most
>> weren't (and still aren't) all that great. The good news is that many of
>> their problems can be circumvented with skilled remastering. But, even
>> so...

> Some were so good that they haven't been equaled and careful remastering
> such
> as that done by JVC shows just how good both some of these early
> recordings
> and Redbook CD can sound. And as I said above, the best source in the
> 1950's
> and '60's wasn't vinyl, but was, rather, live FM.

Doesn't change the fact that the general run of LPs were mediocre or worse
by modern standards.

>>> But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
>>> which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
>>> of scorn.""

>> Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life! Stereos did become
>> mainstream from the Vietnam era until home theater succeeded it as the
>> mainstream. Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer SOTA.

> Bull! Home audio without video might not be fashionable, but video does
> NOTHING to enhance the listening experience.

You forgot to say "for me". Or perhaps you don't understand that you don't
set the tastes for all of modern mankind.

Audio Empire

May 12th 10, 03:25 PM

On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:22:56 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> On May 11, 6:56=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:23:25 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
>> (in article >):
>>> There is no intrinsic reason fr this to be. The major
>>> cost components in a speaker are magnet assemblies,
>>> cabinets, profit and overhead (and the ordering is all
>>> over the map). Everything else seldom adds up to be
>>> equal to any of of these components.
>>
>> =A0I agree, but most expensive speakers are made by
>> small companies and are the result of small-scale
>> economics. Plus a lot of high-end speakers use exotic
>> materials like carbon fiber and dense space-age resins
>> for drivers and cabinets.
>
> well, given that I am actually in that business, the materials
> you list are NOT expensive at all, not in the quantities found
> in loudspeakers. And, frankly, materials like carbon fiber
> and "dense space-age resins" are simply not exotic in the
> rest of the world. They might well be in high-end audio
> circles, but that's because the high-end audio biz is late
> to the party. I was specing off-the-shelf OEM carbon fiber
> drivers 20 years ago, and B&W was doing kevlar drivers
> 35 years ago.
>
>> Also, development costs get amortized over far fewer
>> units of any one model in small company as well.
>
> Again, being in the business, the amortized development
> costs are a small part of the total cost of pretty much
> ANY speaker, be they from large or small companies.
> And, by the way, those are sunken costs, not amortized
> costs. You spent them up front and you don't get to pay
> them over time. Now, maybe you get to use your current
> cash flow to fund the next experiment, but you don't get
> to travel back in time.
>
> Plus the fact that most of these high end speaker
> companies,despite what you might read, do NOT have
> very large engineering budgets.
>
> Like I said, the MAJOR cost elements of speakers are
> magnet structure, cabinet, overhead and profit. When
> I said "everything else seldom adds up to be equal to
> any one of these components," that included what
> you're talking about here.
>
> And it's still my contention having been intimately
> involved in the business for a long time, that there
> is no intrinsic physical basis behind your assertion
> that "there is little decent in the way of speakers
> below about the $1K level." If there is truth to your
> claim, it's due to grotesque incompetence, cultural
> biases, add the fact that the market is so small
> that no competent practitioner could afford to be in
> this business, leaving the hucksters, cranks,
> charlatans and loonies to run loose in the high-end
> business, always encouraged by the rabid blitherings
> of their high-end magazine groupies
>
> If Fremer believes "stereo has become an object of
> scorn," he has but himself and his ilk to blame. And
> while we're at it, we can line up people Lumely, Pearson,
> Cardas, Tice, mPingo, and the rest of the blithering
> hordes against the proverbial wall.
>
> MP3 ain't to blame for the decline of stereo, the high-end
> yahoos are.

So what you're saying is that high-end speaker manufacturers such as
Magnepan, Martin-Logan, Wilson Audio, Vandersteen, et al are ripping their
customers off big time?

Well, maybe, but I've heard an awful lot of these inexpensive speakers that
you seem to think are just as good as the expensive spread, and they sound
like - well, inexpensive speakers. Bigger, more expensive speakers always
sound bigger, have more bottom, load the room more effectively, are more
coherent from top to bottom and have better dynamic range than do the
cheapies. If great sounding speakers can be done so cheaply, why aren't they?

Harry Lavo

May 12th 10, 04:07 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:>
>>>
>>>> I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000
>>>> speaker
>>>> system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
>>>> European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for
>>>> under
>>>> $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
>>>> listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based
>>>> on
>>>> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both
>>>> pairs
>>>> of
>>>> speakers sounded very, very good.
>>>
>>> So, what were the speakers?
>>
>> Behringer B2031A
>>
>
> That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the "big 'uns"? And
> what
> were the musical selections, sources, and other equipment used? And what
> type of rating system? And was it blind or double-blind?
>

And a few other questions: Who were the listeners.....studio pros,
audiophiles, SWM audio club members, the Boston Audio Society, college
students, random off-the-street people, or whom? And finally, who (if
anybody) sponsored the test?

Jenn[_2_]

May 12th 10, 04:38 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:>
> >
> >> I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000
> >> speaker
> >> system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
> >> European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
> >> $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
> >> listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based
> >> on
> >> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs
> >> of
> >> speakers sounded very, very good.
> >
> > So, what were the speakers?
>
> Behringer B2031A

Thanks. I was actually considering getting them for my little home
studio. What were the other speakers?

Audio Empire

May 12th 10, 05:57 PM

On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:>
>>
>>> I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000
>>> speaker
>>> system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
>>> European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
>>> $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
>>> listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based
>>> on
>>> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs
>>> of
>>> speakers sounded very, very good.
>>
>> So, what were the speakers?
>
> Behringer B2031A
>

I have a pair of those connected to my computer. I use them as "near-field"
monitors when I'm using my computer as a DAW. They're pretty good and well
made, (I'm actually a big Behringer fan and have lots of their gear. They
generally represent good value and performance for money spent)), but the
B2031As are similar to a lot of near-field monitors in that price-range. For
instance, they have little in the way of bass below about 60 Hz. I will say
that they are better than ANY "audiophile" speakers of that size at up to
three times the price. But a pair of Magnepan's new 1.7s will blow em out of
the water at $2000, as will M-L's little Source ES hybrid at the same price.
I do agree that they are a great buy at less than $500/pair street price.

I have to ask, what $12000 speaker system did you compare them to that people
were "split" in their opinion? I want to be able to warn people off of a
speaker THAT expensive and THAT mediocre.

Audio Empire

May 12th 10, 07:17 PM

On Wed, 12 May 2010 07:25:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?ref=busin
>>>
>>>> "The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
>>>> decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
>>>> symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
>>>> new flat-screen TV today.
>>>
>>> I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if not more
>>> sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems were pretty bad sounding by
>>> modern standards. It took a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and
>>> expensive hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be compared
>>> to
>>> a good portable digital player and a nice pair of IEMs., or a quality but
>>> still relatively small sub/sat speaker system.
>>
>> That depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, speaker technology
>> in
>> the 1950's was very primitive.
>
> As was everything else about audio.
>
>> People had Karlson Kabinets with big 12" or
>> 15" Altec Lansing or Electrovoice drivers in them or Klipschorns - and
>> they
>> still didn't have any low-end. cone tweeters were mostly just small
>> speakers
>> with a capacitor hung on them to keep the lows out, or they were
>> compression
>> horns like the Altec 500 Hz treble horns (awful).
>
> Actually, done right the Altec horns could sound pretty good.

You're joking, right? They might be fine for speech in a movie theater, but
for music?

> Ever hear a
> pair of Altec A4s set up right? But, they were huge, they were expensive,
> and they were not as good as their contemporary competition.

I had a pair of A7s as a teenager. Got 'em free from a local movie house that
went out of business. The contractor was renovating the theater into a
furniture store (if memory serves) and was throwing everything out. I don't
think the A7s were more than a couple of years old at the time. They were
real efficient (I only had a pair of Knight 18-watt mono integrated amps at
the time). The thing that I remember mostly about them is that in spite of
having a 15-inch horn-loaded woofer, they had little bass. I recall that they
were about 10 dB down at 40 Hz. They also had this nasal coloration in the
midrange. This corresponded nicely to the frequency of the ringing one would
get from the treble-horn by thumping it with one's finger. They were loud,
though and certainly were better than the home-made bass reflex enclosures
that I replaced with them. What ultimately disillusioned me about them was
when I heard a pair of AR3s at friend of my dad's house. Real bass and decent
(for the time) top-end.
>
>> But amps and pre-amps were pretty good.
>
> By modern standards they were marginal at best. Frightfully expensive in
> inflation-adjusted dollars, required a lot of maintenance, large, wasted
> energy, a good amp with only modest power was very heavy. There were only a
> tiny number of what we would call a medium-powered amplifier today,and
> nothing beyond that.

>
>> I've a friend with a pair of Dynaco
>> Mark III 60-Watt tube "monoblocs" and a Harman-Kardon Citation 1 stereo
>> preamp driving a pair of Magnepan MG-3.6s. The system sounds fine.
>
> The Citation 1 preamp was reviewed by Audio and High Fidelity magazines in
> the early 1960s, which is was no doubt when it was introduced. Therefore,
> it is not a product that was available in the 1950s. Just because something
> sounds "fine" does not make it competitive with its modern competition.

It's good enough to give a lot of musical pleasure to the owner and his
guests.

>
>
>>> Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is very stylish in
>>> certain
>>> circles.
>
>> Some people demand more than others and don't mind paying for it.
>
> Some people pay more for the same or less, because they don't know better,
> or because of their prejudices.

And what of your prejudices, Mr, Kruger?

>>> During most of the 1950s just about everybody was limited to listening to
>>> mono vinyl. While there are great-sounding recordings from that era, most
>>> weren't (and still aren't) all that great. The good news is that many of
>>> their problems can be circumvented with skilled remastering. But, even
>>> so...
>
>> Some were so good that they haven't been equaled and careful remastering
>> such
>> as that done by JVC shows just how good both some of these early
>> recordings
>> and Redbook CD can sound. And as I said above, the best source in the
>> 1950's
>> and '60's wasn't vinyl, but was, rather, live FM.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that the general run of LPs were mediocre or worse
> by modern standards.

That's even true today. Most modern commercial releases on ANY format sound
mediocre to dreadful, and the best are excellent. Thus it has always been,

>>>> But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
>>>> which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
>>>> of scorn.""
>
>>> Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life! Stereos did become
>>> mainstream from the Vietnam era until home theater succeeded it as the
>>> mainstream. Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer SOTA.
>
>> Bull! Home audio without video might not be fashionable, but video does
>> NOTHING to enhance the listening experience.
>
> You forgot to say "for me". Or perhaps you don't understand that you don't
> set the tastes for all of modern mankind.

I would have thought that "for me" was understood. In what way does a camera
which keeps moving, while the sonic perspective stays static enhance the
listening experience, and would that experience be any better if the sonic
perspective followed the moving camera? The entire notion is as ludicrous as
it is confusing. Perhaps, the combination of audio and video would serve the
performance if the video were taken from a single perspective. like the
sound, and the camera remained static. But they don't do it that way, do
they?

I'll also concede that opera performances are enhanced by the video, because
listening to (as opposed to "watching") an opera is akin to listening to a
movie with the TV turned off.

Arny Krueger

May 13th 10, 02:16 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the
> "big 'uns"?

I'm not sure I want to say, all things considered.

> And what were the musical selections,

I didn't keep records.

> sources,

CDs

> and other equipment used?

Good enough stuff so that it doesn't matter if you are rational about audio.

> And what type of rating system?

Informal

> And was it blind or double-blind?

I'm not sure whether the person operating the comparator knew. To be safe,
let's say single blind. It's speakers! They sounded different!

Arny Krueger

May 13th 10, 02:19 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 12 May 2010 07:25:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?ref=busin
>>>>
>>>>> "The change in sound quality is as much cultural as
>>>>> technological. For decades, starting around the
>>>>> 1950s, high-end stereos were a status symbol. A
>>>>> high-quality system was something to show off, much
>>>>> like a new flat-screen TV today.
>>>>
>>>> I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if
>>>> not more sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems
>>>> were pretty bad sounding by modern standards. It took
>>>> a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and expensive
>>>> hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be
>>>> compared to
>>>> a good portable digital player and a nice pair of
>>>> IEMs., or a quality but still relatively small sub/sat
>>>> speaker system.
>>>
>>> That depends on what you're talking about. Certainly,
>>> speaker technology in
>>> the 1950's was very primitive.
>>
>> As was everything else about audio.
>>
>>> People had Karlson Kabinets with big 12" or
>>> 15" Altec Lansing or Electrovoice drivers in them or
>>> Klipschorns - and they
>>> still didn't have any low-end. cone tweeters were
>>> mostly just small speakers
>>> with a capacitor hung on them to keep the lows out, or
>>> they were compression
>>> horns like the Altec 500 Hz treble horns (awful).
>>
>> Actually, done right the Altec horns could sound pretty
>> good.
>
> You're joking, right? They might be fine for speech in a
> movie theater, but for music?

Last time I went to a movie, there was music and speech. It would seem to me
that reproducing a movie well precludes trashing the speech or music.

>> Ever hear a
>> pair of Altec A4s set up right? But, they were huge,
>> they were expensive, and they were not as good as their
>> contemporary competition.

> I had a pair of A7s as a teenager. Got 'em free from a
> local movie house that went out of business. The
> contractor was renovating the theater into a furniture
> store (if memory serves) and was throwing everything out.
> I don't think the A7s were more than a couple of years
> old at the time. They were real efficient (I only had a
> pair of Knight 18-watt mono integrated amps at the time).
> The thing that I remember mostly about them is that in
> spite of having a 15-inch horn-loaded woofer, they had
> little bass. I recall that they were about 10 dB down at
> 40 Hz. They also had this nasal coloration in the
> midrange. This corresponded nicely to the frequency of
> the ringing one would get from the treble-horn by
> thumping it with one's finger. They were loud, though and
> certainly were better than the home-made bass reflex
> enclosures that I replaced with them. What ultimately
> disillusioned me about them was when I heard a pair of
> AR3s at friend of my dad's house. Real bass and decent
> (for the time) top-end.

Excutive Summary: No, the respondent has never heard A4s. If one does a
little research, one finds that there is very little similiarity between A7s
and A4s, other than the "A". ;-)

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/altec/vott.htm

Note that an A7 roughly resembles the A5x,

>>> But amps and pre-amps were pretty good.
>>
>> By modern standards they were marginal at best.
>> Frightfully expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars,
>> required a lot of maintenance, large, wasted energy, a
>> good amp with only modest power was very heavy. There
>> were only a tiny number of what we would call a
>> medium-powered amplifier today,and nothing beyond that.
>
>>
>>> I've a friend with a pair of Dynaco
>>> Mark III 60-Watt tube "monoblocs" and a Harman-Kardon
>>> Citation 1 stereo preamp driving a pair of Magnepan
>>> MG-3.6s. The system sounds fine.
>>
>> The Citation 1 preamp was reviewed by Audio and High
>> Fidelity magazines in the early 1960s, which is was no
>> doubt when it was introduced. Therefore, it is not a
>> product that was available in the 1950s. Just because
>> something sounds "fine" does not make it competitive
>> with its modern competition.
>
> It's good enough to give a lot of musical pleasure to the
> owner and his guests.

But it is out of place in a discussion of 1950s hardware.

>>>> Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is
>>>> very stylish in certain
>>>> circles.
>>
>>> Some people demand more than others and don't mind
>>> paying for it.
>>
>> Some people pay more for the same or less, because they
>> don't know better, or because of their prejudices.

> And what of your prejudices, Mr, Kruger?

Value.

>>>> During most of the 1950s just about everybody was
>>>> limited to listening to mono vinyl. While there are
>>>> great-sounding recordings from that era, most weren't
>>>> (and still aren't) all that great. The good news is
>>>> that many of their problems can be circumvented with
>>>> skilled remastering. But, even so...
>>
>>> Some were so good that they haven't been equaled and
>>> careful remastering such
>>> as that done by JVC shows just how good both some of
>>> these early recordings
>>> and Redbook CD can sound. And as I said above, the best
>>> source in the 1950's
>>> and '60's wasn't vinyl, but was, rather, live FM.
>>
>> Doesn't change the fact that the general run of LPs were
>> mediocre or worse by modern standards.

> That's even true today. Most modern commercial releases
> on ANY format sound mediocre to dreadful, and the best
> are excellent. Thus it has always been,

I think that is exactly right. In the days of vinyl, the medium was a major
stumbling block. Today, the major stumbling block is the people.

>>>>> But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs
>>>>> musicangle.com, which reviews albums, said that
>>>>> today, "a stereo has become an object of scorn.""
>>
>>>> Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life!
>>>> Stereos did become mainstream from the Vietnam era
>>>> until home theater succeeded it as the mainstream.
>>>> Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer
>>>> SOTA.

>>> Bull! Home audio without video might not be
>>> fashionable, but video does NOTHING to enhance the
>>> listening experience.

>> You forgot to say "for me". Or perhaps you don't
>> understand that you don't set the tastes for all of
>> modern mankind.

> I would have thought that "for me" was understood.

Looked like a perfectly general statement.

> In what way does a camera which keeps moving,

Not necessarily the case. And not necessarily a problem.

I have been known to create and/or otherwise provide graphic and video
content that is used during live performances. I'm under the impression that
there is a general perception among both event organizers and attendees that
it enhances the listening experience.

> while the
> sonic perspective stays static enhance the listening
> experience, and would that experience be any better if
> the sonic perspective followed the moving camera? The
> entire notion is as ludicrous as it is confusing.

This opinion seems to be at odds with the preferences of the general public.

> Perhaps, the combination of audio and video would serve
> the performance if the video were taken from a single
> perspective. like the sound, and the camera remained
> static. But they don't do it that way, do they?

When you're doing video, you do whatever you want to do that works for the
audience and event organizers, no?

> I'll also concede that opera performances are enhanced by
> the video, because listening to (as opposed to
> "watching") an opera is akin to listening to a movie with
> the TV turned off.

This would appear to contradict much of what you previously said. To me an
opera is a movie with a ton of music that is performed live. Being
performed live puts some pretty dramatic contstraints on it, but it can
still be very enjoyable.

Arny Krueger

May 13th 10, 05:13 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:>
>>>
>>>> I recently participated in blind listening tests
>>>> comparing a $12,000 speaker
>>>> system from a well-known designer with excellent
>>>> technical chops to a European-designed, China-built
>>>> studio monitor system that sells for under $400 the
>>>> pair. They did sound a little different from each
>>>> other. The listening panel was about evenly split as
>>>> to which they preferred based on
>>>> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all
>>>> agreed that both pairs of
>>>> speakers sounded very, very good.
>>>
>>> So, what were the speakers?
>>
>> Behringer B2031A
>>

> I have a pair of those connected to my computer. I use
> them as "near-field" monitors when I'm using my computer
> as a DAW. They're pretty good and well made, (I'm
> actually a big Behringer fan and have lots of their gear.
> They generally represent good value and performance for
> money spent)),

You may be under-appreciating what you have before you.

> but the B2031As are similar to a lot of
> near-field monitors in that price-range. For instance,
> they have little in the way of bass below about 60 Hz.

We were listening to classical orchestral and choir music, not rap. The
B2031s do have audible response below 60 Hz and it was good enough.

> I will say that they are better than ANY "audiophile"
> speakers of that size at up to three times the price. But
> a pair of Magnepan's new 1.7s will blow em out of the
> water at $2000, as will M-L's little Source ES hybrid at
> the same price. I do agree that they are a great buy at
> less than $500/pair street price.

Phrases like "blow them out of the water" does not exactly sound like the
results of a careful evaluation to me. :-(

Also, I see no efforts to control some biases that based on previous and
this post, seem to be very pronounced.

Interestingly enough the larger speakers were also bipolar transducers, but
they used multi-way direct radiating drivers with a more typical design.

Audio Empire

May 13th 10, 05:14 PM

On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:16:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the
>> "big 'uns"?
>
> I'm not sure I want to say, all things considered.
>
>> And what were the musical selections,
>
> I didn't keep records.
>
>> sources,
>
> CDs
>
>> and other equipment used?
>
> Good enough stuff so that it doesn't matter if you are rational about audio.
>
>> And what type of rating system?
>
> Informal
>
>> And was it blind or double-blind?
>
> I'm not sure whether the person operating the comparator knew. To be safe,
> let's say single blind. It's speakers! They sounded different!
>

So, when people try to hold you to the same rules of evidence wrt to opinions
about sound, to which you hold everybody else, we find that you don't even
hold yourself to those same rules of evidence to which you hold everybody
else! I see. Not a very convincing argument, Arny 8^)

Audio Empire

May 13th 10, 05:51 PM

On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:19:37 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 07:25:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?ref=busin
>>>>>
>>>>>> "The change in sound quality is as much cultural as
>>>>>> technological. For decades, starting around the
>>>>>> 1950s, high-end stereos were a status symbol. A
>>>>>> high-quality system was something to show off, much
>>>>>> like a new flat-screen TV today.
>>>>>
>>>>> I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if
>>>>> not more sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems
>>>>> were pretty bad sounding by modern standards. It took
>>>>> a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and expensive
>>>>> hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be
>>>>> compared to
>>>>> a good portable digital player and a nice pair of
>>>>> IEMs., or a quality but still relatively small sub/sat
>>>>> speaker system.
>>>>
>>>> That depends on what you're talking about. Certainly,
>>>> speaker technology in
>>>> the 1950's was very primitive.
>>>
>>> As was everything else about audio.
>>>
>>>> People had Karlson Kabinets with big 12" or
>>>> 15" Altec Lansing or Electrovoice drivers in them or
>>>> Klipschorns - and they
>>>> still didn't have any low-end. cone tweeters were
>>>> mostly just small speakers
>>>> with a capacitor hung on them to keep the lows out, or
>>>> they were compression
>>>> horns like the Altec 500 Hz treble horns (awful).
>>>
>>> Actually, done right the Altec horns could sound pretty
>>> good.
>>
>> You're joking, right? They might be fine for speech in a
>> movie theater, but for music?
>
> Last time I went to a movie, there was music and speech. It would seem to me
> that reproducing a movie well precludes trashing the speech or music.

You know as well as I do, that's not right. Visual takes precedence over
audible in human senses. Just because a motion picture sound system
reproduces the speech clearly and has lots of bass for the explosions,
doesn't mean that anyone would want to critically listen to music over such a
system.
>>> Ever hear a
>>> pair of Altec A4s set up right? But, they were huge,
>>> they were expensive, and they were not as good as their
>>> contemporary competition.
>
>> I had a pair of A7s as a teenager. Got 'em free from a
>> local movie house that went out of business. The
>> contractor was renovating the theater into a furniture
>> store (if memory serves) and was throwing everything out.
>> I don't think the A7s were more than a couple of years
>> old at the time. They were real efficient (I only had a
>> pair of Knight 18-watt mono integrated amps at the time).
>> The thing that I remember mostly about them is that in
>> spite of having a 15-inch horn-loaded woofer, they had
>> little bass. I recall that they were about 10 dB down at
>> 40 Hz. They also had this nasal coloration in the
>> midrange. This corresponded nicely to the frequency of
>> the ringing one would get from the treble-horn by
>> thumping it with one's finger. They were loud, though and
>> certainly were better than the home-made bass reflex
>> enclosures that I replaced with them. What ultimately
>> disillusioned me about them was when I heard a pair of
>> AR3s at friend of my dad's house. Real bass and decent
>> (for the time) top-end.
>
> Excutive Summary: No, the respondent has never heard A4s.

I suspect that I've been to movie houses that had them, Arny. We have some
large first-run houses here in the San-Francisco Bay Area.

> If one does a
> little research, one finds that there is very little similiarity between A7s
> and A4s, other than the "A". ;-)

I did some research of A4s before I responded. The treble horn looks exactly
like the one on my old A7s (since that was what we were talking about) That's
why I mentioned them. I suspect that they sound similar as well even though
the treble horn driver (A-288) is a newer design. A large part of the
character of horn drivers is the horn itself. The A7s horn was made out of
cast aluminum, I have to admit that I don't know what the A4's horn is made
out of.
>
> http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/altec/vott.htm
>
> Note that an A7 roughly resembles the A5x,

Yes, The A7 is is a late 1940's design.

>>>> But amps and pre-amps were pretty good.
>>>
>>> By modern standards they were marginal at best.
>>> Frightfully expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars,
>>> required a lot of maintenance, large, wasted energy, a
>>> good amp with only modest power was very heavy. There
>>> were only a tiny number of what we would call a
>>> medium-powered amplifier today,and nothing beyond that.
>>
>>>
>>>> I've a friend with a pair of Dynaco
>>>> Mark III 60-Watt tube "monoblocs" and a Harman-Kardon
>>>> Citation 1 stereo preamp driving a pair of Magnepan
>>>> MG-3.6s. The system sounds fine.
>>>
>>> The Citation 1 preamp was reviewed by Audio and High
>>> Fidelity magazines in the early 1960s, which is was no
>>> doubt when it was introduced. Therefore, it is not a
>>> product that was available in the 1950s. Just because
>>> something sounds "fine" does not make it competitive
>>> with its modern competition.
>>
>> It's good enough to give a lot of musical pleasure to the
>> owner and his guests.
>
> But it is out of place in a discussion of 1950s hardware.

I'm sorry, I was of the opinion that we were talking about equipment of the
50's and 60's - post war but pre-transistor.
>
>>>>> Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is
>>>>> very stylish in certain
>>>>> circles.
>>>
>>>> Some people demand more than others and don't mind
>>>> paying for it.
>>>
>>> Some people pay more for the same or less, because they
>>> don't know better, or because of their prejudices.
>
>> And what of your prejudices, Mr, Kruger?
>
> Value.

To the exclusion of all else perhaps? And you have admitted to disliking
vinyl intently.

>>>>> During most of the 1950s just about everybody was
>>>>> limited to listening to mono vinyl. While there are
>>>>> great-sounding recordings from that era, most weren't
>>>>> (and still aren't) all that great. The good news is
>>>>> that many of their problems can be circumvented with
>>>>> skilled remastering. But, even so...
>>>
>>>> Some were so good that they haven't been equaled and
>>>> careful remastering such
>>>> as that done by JVC shows just how good both some of
>>>> these early recordings
>>>> and Redbook CD can sound. And as I said above, the best
>>>> source in the 1950's
>>>> and '60's wasn't vinyl, but was, rather, live FM.
>>>
>>> Doesn't change the fact that the general run of LPs were
>>> mediocre or worse by modern standards.
>
>> That's even true today. Most modern commercial releases
>> on ANY format sound mediocre to dreadful, and the best
>> are excellent. Thus it has always been,
>
> I think that is exactly right. In the days of vinyl, the medium was a major
> stumbling block. Today, the major stumbling block is the people.

There's that pesky anti-vinyl bias rearing its ugly head again! I wouldn't
say that it was a "stumbling block". Vinyl, done right, was and still can be
excellent, but I would say that it was a limitation (as were the analog tape
recorders of the era).

>>>>>> But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs
>>>>>> musicangle.com, which reviews albums, said that
>>>>>> today, "a stereo has become an object of scorn.""
>>>
>>>>> Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life!
>>>>> Stereos did become mainstream from the Vietnam era
>>>>> until home theater succeeded it as the mainstream.
>>>>> Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer
>>>>> SOTA.
>
>>>> Bull! Home audio without video might not be
>>>> fashionable, but video does NOTHING to enhance the
>>>> listening experience.
>
>>> You forgot to say "for me". Or perhaps you don't
>>> understand that you don't set the tastes for all of
>>> modern mankind.
>
>> I would have thought that "for me" was understood.
>
> Looked like a perfectly general statement.
>
>> In what way does a camera which keeps moving,
>
> Not necessarily the case. And not necessarily a problem.
>
> I have been known to create and/or otherwise provide graphic and video
> content that is used during live performances. I'm under the impression that
> there is a general perception among both event organizers and attendees that
> it enhances the listening experience.

Visual takes precedence over audible in human sensual perception. "Seeing"
relegates "hearing" to second-class status, generally speaking. And while I
laud your restraint in keeping the camera still on a video production of an
audio event ( I guess that's what you are saying, above), most video
producers of audio events aren't so circumspect.
>
>> while the
>> sonic perspective stays static enhance the listening
>> experience, and would that experience be any better if
>> the sonic perspective followed the moving camera? The
>> entire notion is as ludicrous as it is confusing.
>
> This opinion seems to be at odds with the preferences of the general public.

Now, I'm expected to answer for the general public? A public who's interest
in music is very superficial, at best? Let's face it most people don't care
about sound quality. If they did, more audio equipment would be sold. Most
are satisfied with boom boxes and iPods. I'm not belittling anyone for that,
different strokes and all that, I'm merely saying that public taste is public
taste and it's usually not the best arbiter what's actually good or right. In
fact, the "vox populi" is notorious for it's terrible taste in just about
everything.

>> Perhaps, the combination of audio and video would serve
>> the performance if the video were taken from a single
>> perspective. like the sound, and the camera remained
>> static. But they don't do it that way, do they?
>
> When you're doing video, you do whatever you want to do that works for the
> audience and event organizers, no?

I don't produce video at all and I disagree violently with how most music
events are presented on video. Remember, I don't listen to pop or rock -
EVER. I don't care about it. I mention this only to make sure that you
understand that my comments apply only to video concerts of classical (and
occasionally jazz) such as one sees occasionally on PBS. What they do in rock
and pop videos, I have no idea about because I don't watch or listen to those
kinds of music programs.

>> I'll also concede that opera performances are enhanced by
>> the video, because listening to (as opposed to
>> "watching") an opera is akin to listening to a movie with
>> the TV turned off.
>
> This would appear to contradict much of what you previously said.

Not at all. Opera is a visual medium. Concerts are most an audio medium. I
"listen" to music, I "watch" operas.

> To me an
> opera is a movie with a ton of music that is performed live.

Actually, It's a stage play with a ton of music.

> Being performed live puts some pretty dramatic contstraints on it, but it can

> still be very enjoyable.

You've obviously never seen an elaborate stage production of one of Wagner's
"Ring Cycle" operas or you would not be saying that live performances are
restraining, dramatically. I recommend that everyone catch at least one major
production like this in their lifetime, even if, like me, you find the
overall concept fairly unapproachable. (Yes, I'm saying that I don't
particularly appreciate opera - although I love Wagner's music.).

Audio Empire

May 13th 10, 06:34 PM

On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:13:54 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:>
>>>>
>>>>> I recently participated in blind listening tests
>>>>> comparing a $12,000 speaker
>>>>> system from a well-known designer with excellent
>>>>> technical chops to a European-designed, China-built
>>>>> studio monitor system that sells for under $400 the
>>>>> pair. They did sound a little different from each
>>>>> other. The listening panel was about evenly split as
>>>>> to which they preferred based on
>>>>> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all
>>>>> agreed that both pairs of
>>>>> speakers sounded very, very good.
>>>>
>>>> So, what were the speakers?
>>>
>>> Behringer B2031A
>>>
>
>> I have a pair of those connected to my computer. I use
>> them as "near-field" monitors when I'm using my computer
>> as a DAW. They're pretty good and well made, (I'm
>> actually a big Behringer fan and have lots of their gear.
>> They generally represent good value and performance for
>> money spent)),
>
> You may be under-appreciating what you have before you.
>
>> but the B2031As are similar to a lot of
>> near-field monitors in that price-range. For instance,
>> they have little in the way of bass below about 60 Hz.
>
> We were listening to classical orchestral and choir music, not rap. The
> B2031s do have audible response below 60 Hz and it was good enough.
>
>> I will say that they are better than ANY "audiophile"
>> speakers of that size at up to three times the price. But
>> a pair of Magnepan's new 1.7s will blow em out of the
>> water at $2000, as will M-L's little Source ES hybrid at
>> the same price. I do agree that they are a great buy at
>> less than $500/pair street price.
>
> Phrases like "blow them out of the water" does not exactly sound like the
> results of a careful evaluation to me. :-(

Much like the details of your "careful" evaluation above, the one where you
won't say what the $12000 speakers were, don't know whether the test was
double or single blind, Don't know what music was used, etc., etc., etc. Pot,
Kettle, black.

BTW, when I use a phrase like "blow them out of the water", I'm referring to
the speaker's ability to convey some of the feeling and characteristics of
real. live music, playing in a real space. Specifically, the Behringers,
while excellent for their purpose, do not provide as satisfying a listener
experience as do the other above named speakers. How do you DBT listener
satisfaction, Arny? Hmmmm?
>
> Also, I see no efforts to control some biases that based on previous and
> this post, seem to be very pronounced.

Pot, kettle, etc.
>
> Interestingly enough the larger speakers were also bipolar transducers, but
> they used multi-way direct radiating drivers with a more typical design.

What were they?

John Nunes

May 13th 10, 06:49 PM

On 5/13/2010 9:51 AM, Audio Empire wrote:

> You know as well as I do, that's not right. Visual takes precedence over
> audible in human senses.

This is a gross generalization and therefore pretty meaningless.
Depends on what one happens to be focusing on along with a persons
native abilities. For example, my auditory memory is better than my
visual memory, the latter of which is very common among musicians.

Audio Empire

May 13th 10, 10:07 PM

On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:21 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
>>>> instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the
>>>> $1K
>>>> level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and
>>>> that's
>>>> the Magnepan MMG at $599.
>>>
>>>> I certainly hear artifacts in lossy compression, but I wouldn't exactly
>>>> characterize them as a crackling noise, I would say that it's more like
>>>> a
>>>> buzzing bee-like distortion that rides the waveform. It's only audible
>>>> during
>>>> low level passages and during transitions between loud and soft passages
>>>> (and
>>>> vice versa) and then only on headphones and very loud speaker listening.
>>>> As
>>>> background music and in the car, lossy compression artifacts are lost in
>>>> the
>>>> ambient noise.
>>>
>>> I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
>>> into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
>>> used by the writer.
>
>> I don't need a DBT to tell me what I hear.
>
> Nobody does. A DBT can't possibly tell you what you hear.
>
> The alternative to bias-controlled listening is to *hear* with your
> prejudices fully engaged.
>
> If you want to listen to the true quality of sound, then you must take
> advantage of bias controlled tests.

When I'm trying to decide whether a difference makes any difference at all, I
agree. But speakers are a matter of taste (because none are perfect and
people pick and choose the characteristics of music that are important to
them and tend to focus on those). and therefore DBTs are pretty worthless for
comparing one speaker to another.
>
> If you want to reinforce your prejudices, then avoid bias controlled tests.

I agree that bias controlled tests are the gold standard for finding out if
there are significant differences between components, but they can't tell me
which speakers are the most accurate (since all speakers are terribly flawed,
what would one use as the control?), nor can they tell me, ultimately, which
of all the speakers in a given price range that I like.

Dick Pierce

May 13th 10, 10:10 PM

On May 12, 10:25=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:22:56 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > well, given that I am actually in that business, the materials
> > you list are NOT expensive at all, not in the quantities found
> > in loudspeakers. And, frankly, materials like carbon fiber
> > and "dense space-age resins" are simply not exotic in the
> > rest of the world. They might well be in high-end audio
> > circles, but that's because the high-end audio biz is late
> > to the party. I was specing off-the-shelf OEM carbon fiber
> > drivers 20 years ago, and B&W was doing kevlar drivers
> > 35 years ago.
>
> >> Also, development costs get amortized over far fewer
> >> units of any one model in small company as well.
>
> > Again, being in the business, the amortized development
> > costs are a small part of the total cost of pretty much
> > ANY speaker, be they from large or small companies.
> > And, by the way, those are sunken costs, =A0not amortized
> > costs. You spent them up front and you don't get to pay
> > them over time. Now, maybe you get to use your current
> > cash flow to fund the next experiment, but you don't get
> > to travel back in time.
>
> > Plus the fact that most of these high end speaker
> > companies,despite what you might read, do NOT have
> > very large engineering budgets.
>
> > Like I said, the MAJOR cost elements of speakers are
> > magnet structure, cabinet, overhead and profit. When
> > I said "everything else seldom adds up to be equal to
> > any one of these components," that included what
> > you're talking about here.
>
> > And it's still my contention having been intimately
> > involved in the business for a long time, that there
> > is no intrinsic physical basis behind your assertion
> > that "there is little decent in the way of speakers
> > below about the $1K level." If there is truth to your
> > claim, it's due to grotesque incompetence, cultural
> > biases, add the fact that the market is so small
> > that no competent practitioner could afford to be in
> > this business, leaving the hucksters, cranks,
> > charlatans and loonies to run loose in the high-end
> > business, always encouraged by the rabid blitherings
> > of their high-end magazine groupies
>
> > If Fremer believes "stereo has become an object of
> > scorn," he has but himself and his ilk to blame. And
> > while we're at it, we can line up people Lumely, Pearson,
> > Cardas, Tice, mPingo, and the rest of the blithering
> > hordes against the proverbial wall.
>
> > MP3 ain't to blame for the decline of stereo, the high-end
> > yahoos are.
>
> So what you're saying is that high-end speaker
> manufacturers such as Magnepan, Martin-Logan,
> Wilson Audio, Vandersteen, et al are ripping their
> customers off big time?

No, what I am saying is what OI said above. If you
want to misinterpret and misconstrue what I said
into something different, you get to do it, but
you also get to have full ownership of that
misinterpretation and the consequences.

Arny Krueger

May 14th 10, 02:27 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> BTW, when I use a phrase like "blow them out of the
> water", I'm referring to the speaker's ability to convey
> some of the feeling and characteristics of real. live
> music, playing in a real space.

Or, you are referrring to hyperbole, prejudice and expectation rather than
the actual sound of the loudspeakers?

> Specifically, the
> Behringers, while excellent for their purpose, do not
> provide as satisfying a listener experience as do the
> other above named speakers.

An effect that seems to go away when the identity of the speakers is
concealed by a scrim.

> How do you DBT listener satisfaction, Arny?

You let people listen to the speakers under bias-controlled conditions and
ask them how satisfied they are????

Audio Empire

May 14th 10, 04:47 PM

On Fri, 14 May 2010 06:27:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> BTW, when I use a phrase like "blow them out of the
>> water", I'm referring to the speaker's ability to convey
>> some of the feeling and characteristics of real. live
>> music, playing in a real space.
>
> Or, you are referrring to hyperbole, prejudice and expectation rather than
> the actual sound of the loudspeakers?
>
>> Specifically, the
>> Behringers, while excellent for their purpose, do not
>> provide as satisfying a listener experience as do the
>> other above named speakers.
>
> An effect that seems to go away when the identity of the speakers is
> concealed by a scrim.
>
>> How do you DBT listener satisfaction, Arny?
>
> You let people listen to the speakers under bias-controlled conditions and
> ask them how satisfied they are????
>
>

I dunno, I think bias-controlled tests on speakers would be pretty
inconclusive. Speakers all sound so different, I don't believe that
"Controlled tests" will tell one anything except perhaps which is the more or
less spectacular (as opposed to accurate) of the speakers under evaluation.
DBTs are good for detecting differences (and in speakers, these differences
are so great, that one doesn't need a DBT to either notice or characterize
them) not which is "better". Now, if one could blindly switch between real,
live music and a speaker under evaluation, then PERHAPS, using the live music
as a control, we could get somewhere. But without a reference, you only get
to hear the differences, not the absolute quality.

OTOH, I remember back in the 1960's when Acoustic Research had a showroom in
Times Square in NYC. They were conducting "Live vs Recorded" demos there.
Behind a sheer scrim was a pair of AR3ax speakers and a string quartet. The
quartet had been recorded in the exact location that they were playing in and
the tape was being played back while the musicians pretended to play (all one
could see from the audience perspective was outlines of the musicians through
the scrim). At some point, the speakers were silenced and the musicians
played for real. The challenge was for the assembled audience to tell which
was which. I went back to that store several times over a week that I was
staying in New York. The thing that struck me was that most people couldn't
tell the difference between the real musicians playing and the speakers. AR
was clever because they didn't stop the tape, but let it run so that tape
hiss would be present whether the sound was coming from the musicians or from
the pre-recorded program. One couldn't use the absence or presence of tape
hiss as a clue.

Here's my point. By today's standards, a Crown reel-to-reel tape deck, a pair
of 60 Watt McIntosh tube amplifiers and a pair of AR3ax speakers is pretty
primitive stuff. If the vast majority of listeners couldn't, in 1963, tell
the difference between that equipment and live music, then I'm not so sure
what the value would be of a similar "live-vs-recorded" DBT today where
everything in the equipment chain is so much better than it was then. Hell,
even our self-powered Behringer B2131A speakers are better than a pair of
AR3s and a a couple of McIntosh tubed sixty-Watters!

Arny Krueger

May 14th 10, 05:43 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> So, when people try to hold you to the same rules of
> evidence wrt to opinions about sound, to which you hold
> everybody else, we find that you don't even hold yourself
> to those same rules of evidence to which you hold
> everybody else! I see. Not a very convincing argument,
> Arny 8^)

I do find it hard to communicate with people who do not understand that the
scale of audible differences among speakers and speaker cables are vastly
different.

Audio Empire

May 14th 10, 11:57 PM

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:43:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> So, when people try to hold you to the same rules of
>> evidence wrt to opinions about sound, to which you hold
>> everybody else, we find that you don't even hold yourself
>> to those same rules of evidence to which you hold
>> everybody else! I see. Not a very convincing argument,
>> Arny 8^)
>
> I do find it hard to communicate with people who do not understand that the
> scale of audible differences among speakers and speaker cables are vastly
> different.
>

I don't follow you. There is NO audible difference between speaker cables.
None, nada, zip! there is a lot of differences between between speakers.

None of which has anything to do with my comment that you seem to have
different standards with regard to what you will accept as a valid
"bias-free" test for yourself and what you will accept as a valid "bias-free"
test from others.

[ Let's move away from the realm of the personal, please, on
all sides of this discussion. -- dsr ]

Harry Lavo

May 14th 10, 11:58 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> So, when people try to hold you to the same rules of
>> evidence wrt to opinions about sound, to which you hold
>> everybody else, we find that you don't even hold yourself
>> to those same rules of evidence to which you hold
>> everybody else! I see. Not a very convincing argument,
>> Arny 8^)
>
> I do find it hard to communicate with people who do not understand that
> the
> scale of audible differences among speakers and speaker cables are vastly
> different.

You can still have bias when comparing speakers, Arny, which is why the
questions are in order. I notice you haven't answered my follow-on
questions which are highly germane to your conclusion.....who was sponsoring
the test, and what types of listerners/with what listening references were
doing the evaluation?

Audio Empire

May 15th 10, 02:48 PM

On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:58:06 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> So, when people try to hold you to the same rules of
>>> evidence wrt to opinions about sound, to which you hold
>>> everybody else, we find that you don't even hold yourself
>>> to those same rules of evidence to which you hold
>>> everybody else! I see. Not a very convincing argument,
>>> Arny 8^)
>>
>> I do find it hard to communicate with people who do not understand that
>> the
>> scale of audible differences among speakers and speaker cables are vastly
>> different.
>
>
> You can still have bias when comparing speakers, Arny, which is why the
> questions are in order. I notice you haven't answered my follow-on
> questions which are highly germane to your conclusion.....who was sponsoring
> the test, and what types of listerners/with what listening references were
> doing the evaluation?
>
>

And what was the $12000 speaker?

Arny Krueger

May 15th 10, 03:23 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> I dunno, I think bias-controlled tests on speakers would
> be pretty inconclusive.

This from the same source that thinks that CDP 101s must have ringing,
despite their minimum-phase analog filters.

What we think doesn't always matter. There is the slight matter of the
relevant facts!

> Speakers all sound so different,

Long ago many of us discovered that if you ameolorate the larger frequency
response differences between speakers, then not so much. Speakers are
getting better and in a good room, some of them can sound remarkably
similar.

> I don't believe that "Controlled tests" will tell one
> anything except perhaps which is the more or less
> spectacular (as opposed to accurate) of the speakers
> under evaluation.

Tell that to Sean Olive. They've been doing DBT speaker taste testing for at
least a decade.

> DBTs are good for detecting differences
> (and in speakers, these differences are so great, that
> one doesn't need a DBT to either notice or characterize
> them) not which is "better".

The " I don't need a DBT" litany has been proven wrong soooo many times....

And of course it comes from the people who aren't out there doing lots of
DBTs. How can you be an expert about a testing methodology that you've
rarely if ever used and are obviously not the least bit comfortable with?

> Now, if one could blindly
> switch between real, live music and a speaker under
> evaluation, then PERHAPS, using the live music as a
> control, we could get somewhere.

There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to compare
2 speakers????

Please notice that we're comparing loudspeakers, not live versus recorded.

And also notice that much of what's wrong with live versus recorded happens
at the live performance end of the system.

Harry Lavo

May 15th 10, 05:49 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>

>snip<

> There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to
> compare
> 2 speakers????
>
> Please notice that we're comparing loudspeakers, not live versus recorded.
>
> And also notice that much of what's wrong with live versus recorded
> happens
> at the live performance end of the system.
>

Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the
"objectivist" philosophy extant today.

IF, and only, IF you attend lots of live music concerts of your choice (in
my case unamplified, but that is my choice) can you decided what set of
speakers you think sound most like live, in your room, with your equipment.
"Obective" comparative testing of speakers may be useful for development of
speakers, but it is hardly a mechanism for deciding even which speakers are
"best" or "preferred" when it comes to long term satisfaction. That comes
from monadic evaluation against an imbedded sense of "rightness" about live
sound.

And with all due respect to Sean Olive and Harmon International, despite a
decades worth of objective testing there is hardly any consensus among pro
audio folk or home audiophiles that their speakers outperform any number of
competing designs when it comes to which speakers people feel best for their
assigned tasks or tastes.

If you listen to a lot of live music, and then carefully audition equipment
both in-shop and at-home before making choices, you can assemble a system
that is unfailingly musical (for music of your choice) and satisfying to you
with nary a blind test in the process.

bob

May 15th 10, 09:42 PM

On May 15, 12:49=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
> Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of th=
e
> "objectivist" philosophy extant today.

So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time
you had a symphony orchestra in your living room?

What? You've never had a symphony orchestra in your living room?

See that's the trouble with subjectivists. They've cut live music out
of the equation.

> IF, and only, IF you attend lots of live music concerts of your choice (i=
n
> my case unamplified, but that is my choice) can you decided what set of
> speakers you think sound most like live, in your room, with your equipmen=
t.

Steven Sullivan

May 16th 10, 12:46 AM

jwvm > wrote:
> On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:

> <snip>

> > =A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
> For
> > =A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
> > =A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
> a
> > =A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

> With advances in technology, better quality performance is available
> at much lower prices. An implicitly negative comment was made about
> portable music players but in actuality, they actually provide
> excellent sound quality, at least with decent headphones and vastly
> better than cassette players. For portable music in the 1950s, there
> was the wonderful AM transistor radio which was truly low fidelity.

indeed, this is the real revolution -- that *extremely* high quality
sound of gear and formats routinely available to consumers for a pittance,
compared to the 'good old days' of vinyl.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Steven Sullivan

May 16th 10, 12:46 AM

Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):

> > "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
> >> instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the
> >> $1K
> >> level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and
> >> that's
> >> the Magnepan MMG at $599.
> >
> >> I certainly hear artifacts in lossy compression, but I wouldn't exactly
> >> characterize them as a crackling noise, I would say that it's more like a
> >> buzzing bee-like distortion that rides the waveform. It's only audible
> >> during
> >> low level passages and during transitions between loud and soft passages
> >> (and
> >> vice versa) and then only on headphones and very loud speaker listening.
> >> As
> >> background music and in the car, lossy compression artifacts are lost in
> >> the
> >> ambient noise.
> >
> > I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
> > into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
> > used by the writer.

> I don't need a DBT to tell me what I hear.

You could very well need on to tell you if what you believe, is true.

> anything here, so I cannot see what good "unbiased" listening tests would do.
> It's not a question of whether this sounds different from that, it's a
> question of whether these artifacts are present or not, and if they are
> present, are they audible?

"Present or not' is another way of saying 'different or same'.In the
former you are comparing to an idea of what it SHOULD sound like,
in the latter you are comparing to a second external stimulus.

> I can hear them. I acknowledge that certain kinds
> of music effectively mask these artifacts, and I acknowledge, that ambient
> noise in the listening environment will do likewise.

The codec and bitrate also matter. For the zillionth time, just saying 'mp3'
doesn't define either.

Since the format involves perceptual encoding, beyond a rather low bitrate
you generally need a DBT to validate a claim that these artifacts are audible
to you.

> None of that alters the fact that some of us do hear
> them and find them objectionable.

But you haven't defined 'them', much less proveded evidence to conclude
'some of us' actually heard artifacts in specific cases.

> I for one would much rather put-up with the
> tics and pops in an LP than listen to the "correlated" distortion of an MP3.
> Apparently you feel just the opposite.

A tick or pop correlated to the revolution rate of a disc was always pretty
annoying to me.

> I don't have any misapprehensions about MP3. For the types of music that I
> listen to and the way I listen, MP3 is inadequate - even at the higher
> bit-rates. Even Sony's ATRAC lossy compression algorithm was better and less
> objectionable than MP3.

What type of music, what bitrate what codec what controls for bias etc. You should
know the drill by now.

> > I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000 speaker
> > system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
> > European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
> > $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
> > listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based on
> > dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs of
> > speakers sounded very, very good.

> I'll bet that the 400 mini-monitors don't have as much or as good quality
> bass as did the $12000 system nor could it load the room like a big system.

> Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like
> amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small
> mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as possible
> - I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that
> has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast.

I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test was like that?

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

May 16th 10, 12:46 AM

On 5/15/2010 9:49 AM, Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Arny > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Audio > wrote in message
>>
>>
>
>> snip<
>
>> There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to
>> compare
>> 2 speakers????
>>
>> Please notice that we're comparing loudspeakers, not live versus recorded.
>>
>> And also notice that much of what's wrong with live versus recorded
>> happens
>> at the live performance end of the system.
>>
>
> Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the
> "objectivist" philosophy extant today.

He was only talking about comparing *two* speakers. Nothing to do with
live vs recorded. *AND* he was talking about a purely *subjective*
test, with some controls.

>
> IF, and only, IF you attend lots of live music concerts of your choice (in
> my case unamplified, but that is my choice) can you decided what set of
> speakers you think sound most like live, in your room, with your equipment.

You can't be serious, surely. Anyone can decide what speakers sound
most like live music *to them* under whatever conditions works for them.
Your perceived "requirements" are irrelevant to anyone but you when
individual *preference* is the question.

But say that were not the case, how do you define "lots"? If someone
goes to "Lots - 1" concerts in your chosen interval, then they're not
qualified?

<snip>

Keith Hughes

bob

May 16th 10, 12:46 AM

On May 15, 10:23=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:59:39 -0700, bob wrote
> (in article >):

> > But how do you evaluate this now? You don't have the string quartet
> > right there in your living room between the speakers. So you do what
> > you can do: You listen to one set of speakers, then you listen to
> > another, and you decide which sounds closer to real live music.
>
> Yes, I agree, but how do you know which these are? And a DBT isn't going =
to
> really help here. All such a test will do is tell you that speaker A soun=
ds
> different from speaker B and might tell you in a rather gross manner, wha=
t
> ways in which they differ. But they still won't tell you which speaker is
> closer to real live music.

Please accept the following as a constructive suggestion: Before you
tell us on what's wrong with someone's research, try reading it. If
you would do that, it would raise the level of this conversation
substantially.

For the record, Olive's research does NOT "tell you that speaker A
sounds different from speaker B," nor "which speaker is closer to
[what you think is] real live music." That's not what it's designed to
do. It is designed to compare measurements to listener preferences.
But his approach could easily be adapted by anyone interested in
determining which speakers come closest to what listeners think real
live music sounds like.

> > Well, you can do exactly the same comparison blind. All you need is a
> > helper or two. And the advantage of doing it blind is that your
> > judgment will no longer be influenced by your knowledge of the
> > speakers--their price, size, configuration, reputation, etc.
>
> But the results will still, be, in the final analysis, inconclusive.

But closer to conclusive than any speaker comparison you have ever
done.

bob

Arny Krueger

May 16th 10, 12:47 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:59:39 -0700, bob wrote
> (in article >):

>> But how do you evaluate this now? You don't have the
>> string quartet right there in your living room between
>> the speakers. So you do what you can do: You listen to
>> one set of speakers, then you listen to another, and you
>> decide which sounds closer to real live music.
>
> Yes, I agree, but how do you know which these are? And a
> DBT isn't going to really help here. All such a test will
> do is tell you that speaker A sounds different from
> speaker B and might tell you in a rather gross manner,
> what ways in which they differ. But they still won't tell
> you which speaker is closer to real live music.

This begs the question how anyone ever had an opinon about a speaker's sound
quality without ready reference to a string quartet.

We've got plenty of factual records of many people on this forum opining
long and hard about which speakers sound good and which sound bad.

I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm guessing that not one of them had a
real live string quartet present for any of those speaker evaluations and/or
comparisons.

This is yet another example of how people hear the words "DBT" and
immediately pile a ton of baggage on to the conversation. They pile on
requirements that they themselves have paid little or no attention in their
own personal evaluations. It is all obfuscation.

Steven Sullivan

May 16th 10, 12:47 AM

Harry Lavo > wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:>
> >>>
> >>>> I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000
> >>>> speaker
> >>>> system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
> >>>> European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for
> >>>> under
> >>>> $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
> >>>> listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based
> >>>> on
> >>>> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both
> >>>> pairs
> >>>> of
> >>>> speakers sounded very, very good.
> >>>
> >>> So, what were the speakers?
> >>
> >> Behringer B2031A
> >>
> >
> > That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the "big 'uns"? And
> > what
> > were the musical selections, sources, and other equipment used? And what
> > type of rating system? And was it blind or double-blind?
> >

> And a few other questions: Who were the listeners.....studio pros,
> audiophiles, SWM audio club members, the Boston Audio Society, college
> students, random off-the-street people, or whom? And finally, who (if
> anybody) sponsored the test?

What is the point of this interrogation?

There is a nice body of literature from the Harman guys involving
double-blind quality rating of loudspeakers, dating back to the mid-80s,
involving all the sorts of listeners you mention, demonstrating that
high cost is *not* a sure predictor of high quality. IOW, that (then-)surprising
'equivalencies' in quality can result, even when trained listeners are
used, when sighted biases are removed. So by nowresults such
Arny reports *aren't* surprising, regardless of who was in the panel.

You know this, I'd bet most of the participants on this thread know this,
and Floyd Toole ever wrote it all up in his recent book 'Sound
Reproduction' -- which was glowingly reviewed by Kal Rubinson in
Stereophile -- for those who don't.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Arny Krueger

May 16th 10, 04:03 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong
> with much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today.

And exactly which objectivist is uniquely cutting live music out of the
discussion?

Just tell me the occasions when you personally evaluated *any* audio
component by means of direct comparison with a non trivial live musical
performance, and the occasions when you did not. Simple counts of each will
suffice.

Steven Sullivan

May 16th 10, 04:03 AM

wrote:
> There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
> had for $2.49.

> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?ref=busin

> "The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
> decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
> symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
> new flat-screen TV today.

> But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
> which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
> of scorn.""

Michael F. confuses 'audiophile pretension' with 'stereo'.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Steven Sullivan

May 16th 10, 04:04 AM

Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:29:55 -0700, bob wrote
> (in article >):

> > On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
> >> There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
> >> had for $2.49.
> >>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?ref=3Dbusin
> >>
> >> =A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
> > For
> >> =A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
> >> =A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
> > a
> >> =A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.
> >>
> >> =A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
> > ,
> >> =A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
> > ect
> >> =A0 =A0of scorn.""
> >
> > Fremer would know something about objects of scorn. :-)
> >
> > The article itself predictably muddles the issues of data compression
> > and dynamic compression--and, of course, fails to note how much more
> > benign the former is. It also fails to note the single biggest
> > difference between listening to a high-end rig and listening to an
> > iPod--the transducers.

> Fremer has a point. As I said in a related post yesterday, most commercial
> releases fall far short of being as good as their release format CAN BE,
> whether that format be vinyl, Redbook CD, SACD, DVD-A or some high-res WAV
> file.

That's been true forever. It's just that since CD, the potential of
what they 'can be' has been so great, the gap between the possible and
the actual has been all the more depressing. I'd say roughly that we
hit a gap minimum around the late 80s/early 90s (the first wave of
remastered CDs 'from original master tapes') but it's been widening since,
primarily due to the loudness race (NOT lossy compression).

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Jenn[_2_]

May 16th 10, 04:04 AM

In article >, bob >
wrote:

> On May 15, 12:49*pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> >
> > Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the
> > "objectivist" philosophy extant today.
>
> So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time
> you had a symphony orchestra in your living room?

I've heard enough live music in enough spaces to know how an orchestra
CANNOT sound in a typical performance space. When evaluating speakers
for purchase, I go for those that can give me the closest to how that
orchestra (piano, singer, flute) COULD sound, given my budget, and
reject those that make the music sound like it CANNOT.

Steven Sullivan

May 16th 10, 04:04 AM

Audio Empire > wrote:
> > advantage of bias controlled tests.

> When I'm trying to decide whether a difference makes any difference at all, I
> agree. But speakers are a matter of taste (because none are perfect and
> people pick and choose the characteristics of music that are important to
> them and tend to focus on those). and therefore DBTs are pretty worthless for
> comparing one speaker to another.

If it's taste in *sound* that you hope to be relying on *exclusively*,
then DBTs are actually *necessary*, to eliminate sighted bias.

They're rather hard to do for loudspeakers, though. Why not just
concede that your 'taste' in loudspeaker sound can hardly help being
contaminated (or more politely, 'informed') by non-audio factors?

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

dave a

May 16th 10, 04:05 AM

On 5/15/2010 4:47 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
> This begs the question how anyone ever had an opinon about a speaker's sound
> quality without ready reference to a string quartet.
>
> We've got plenty of factual records of many people on this forum opining
> long and hard about which speakers sound good and which sound bad.
>
> I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm guessing that not one of them had a
> real live string quartet present for any of those speaker evaluations and/or
> comparisons.
>
> This is yet another example of how people hear the words "DBT" and
> immediately pile a ton of baggage on to the conversation. They pile on
> requirements that they themselves have paid little or no attention in their
> own personal evaluations. It is all obfuscation.
>
>

Since when is a string quartet the standard reference? What if I like
hard rock or a cappella choir? I've been to rock concerts where the
hall acoustics were terrible and the recorded versions of the same band
sound much better on almost any system. And, I really doubt my living
room would sound that good with either a choir or a rock band.

I thought the discussion was about comparing two speaker systems, not
speakers to live performances.

Harry Lavo

May 16th 10, 04:44 AM

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Harry Lavo > wrote:
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>> In article >,
>> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:>
>> >>>
>> >>>> I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000
>> >>>> speaker
>> >>>> system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for
>> >>>> under
>> >>>> $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other.
>> >>>> The
>> >>>> listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred
>> >>>> based
>> >>>> on
>> >>>> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both
>> >>>> pairs
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> speakers sounded very, very good.
>> >>>
>> >>> So, what were the speakers?
>> >>
>> >> Behringer B2031A
>> >>
>> >
>> > That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the "big 'uns"? And
>> > what
>> > were the musical selections, sources, and other equipment used? And
>> > what
>> > type of rating system? And was it blind or double-blind?
>> >
>
>> And a few other questions: Who were the listeners.....studio pros,
>> audiophiles, SWM audio club members, the Boston Audio Society, college
>> students, random off-the-street people, or whom? And finally, who (if
>> anybody) sponsored the test?
>
> What is the point of this interrogation?

You don't think knowing who sponsored a test that found a $500 minimonitor
to be equally preferred to $12,000 speakers isn't germane? Suppose I told
you the test found a $500 turntable/cartridge to be equally preferred to a
state-of-the-art CD player playing the same recording....you don't think
you'd want to know under what auspices the test was held, among whom, and
whether or not it was sponsored by the manufacturer of the record player?

And assuming that the test was not sponsored or rigged somehow, would you
not want to know what music was used, and how familiar the people listening
would be to that kind of music, how accustomed they might be to listening to
speakers similar to either of the speakers under test, or whether or not
they had even ever heard anything similar (perhaps only earbuds)?

>
> There is a nice body of literature from the Harman guys involving
> double-blind quality rating of loudspeakers, dating back to the mid-80s,
> involving all the sorts of listeners you mention, demonstrating that
> high cost is *not* a sure predictor of high quality. IOW, that
> (then-)surprising
> 'equivalencies' in quality can result, even when trained listeners are
> used, when sighted biases are removed. So by nowresults such
> Arny reports *aren't* surprising, regardless of who was in the panel.

I have read much, if not all, of the Olive/Harmon literature up to about two
years ago. I recall one test that found the preferences of trained and
largely untrained listeners to have come out similar.....and that was a test
conducted in a rather austere testing environment, not in a relaxed home
setting, for the specific purpose of finding how comparative their ratings
were. I am not aware of any independent third-party replication of such a
test. Are you? If so, perhaps you could share it with us with a
descriptive summary and a citation?

>
> You know this, I'd bet most of the participants on this thread know this,
> and Floyd Toole ever wrote it all up in his recent book 'Sound
> Reproduction' -- which was glowingly reviewed by Kal Rubinson in
> Stereophile -- for those who don't.

Wow! One test, cited by one of its constructors, in a book viewed favorably
by a Stereophile reviewer. That is impressive!

Don't get me wrong....I'm not knocking Olive's test....but it was just
that....one test, and done for a specific purpose....to find out how many
hours of training or not had to be imbued or found in listeners in order to
get comparable ratings of a loudspeakers objective qualites in a test
facility. It was hardly the holy grail of speaker testing. And he has done
other interesting tests as well....useful, I guess, for Harmon's development
of car radios, single box systems, etc. not just (or even necessarily
primarily) hi-fi speakers. But as I said in my earlier post, there is no
evidence that this research has put Harman ahead of the pack when it comes
to audiophile preferences.

Jenn[_2_]

May 16th 10, 03:00 PM

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Audio Empire > wrote:

> > I'll bet that the 400 mini-monitors don't have as much or as good quality
> > bass as did the $12000 system nor could it load the room like a big system.
>
> > Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like
> > amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small
> > mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as
> > possible
> > - I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that
> > has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast.
>
> I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test was like that?

I see no such assumption.

Audio Empire

May 16th 10, 03:13 PM

On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:23:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
<snip>

>> Now, if one could blindly
>> switch between real, live music and a speaker under
>> evaluation, then PERHAPS, using the live music as a
>> control, we could get somewhere.
>
> There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to compare
> 2 speakers????

To find out which is the more accurate of the two? You bet.
>
> Please notice that we're comparing loudspeakers, not live versus recorded.

Comparing one set of inaccuracies against another set of inaccuracies seems
to me an empty procedure, that in the end tells us nothing useful.

> And also notice that much of what's wrong with live versus recorded happens
> at the live performance end of the system.

Yes, that, entirely possible; probable even. It doesn't alter the fact taht a
double blind comparison of two loudspeakers ultimately tells us nothing about
either speaker's accuracy to the waveform being reproduced.

Scott[_6_]

May 16th 10, 03:17 PM

On May 13, 6:19=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
> > You're joking, right? They might be fine for speech in a
> > movie theater, but for music?
>
> Last time I went to a movie, there was music and speech. It would seem to=
me
> that reproducing a movie well precludes trashing the speech or music.
>

He said nothing about "reproducing a movie well." He said "they might
be fine for speech in a movie theater." He said nothing about being
fine for movie soundtracks in their entirety.

Scott[_6_]

May 16th 10, 03:22 PM

On May 11, 12:23=A0pm, Dick Pierce >
wrote:

> But, that being said, the ability to produce an under $1k
> speaker of high quality is a function primarily of designer
> competence and knowledge as well as marketing and
> sales prowess, both of which are in increasing short
> supply in the high-end or component audio market,
> which itself is becoming a vanishingly small portion of
> the total audio market.

So are these just grossly overpriced speakers?
http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=3Dghsfs#/page2/
If one can produce something of "high quality" for under 1K what does
one get from these guys for the extra 21K?

Scott[_6_]

May 16th 10, 04:18 PM

On May 15, 4:47=A0pm, Steven Sullivan > wrote:

>
> What is the point of this interrogation?
>
> There is a nice body of literature from the Harman guys involving
> double-blind quality rating of loudspeakers, dating back to the mid-80s,
> involving all the sorts of listeners you mention, demonstrating that
> high cost is *not* a sure predictor of high quality. IOW, that (then-)sur=
prising
> 'equivalencies' in quality can result, even when trained listeners are
> used, when sighted biases are removed. So by nowresults such
> Arny reports *aren't* surprising, regardless of who was in the panel.
>
> You know this, I'd bet most of the participants on this thread know this,
> and Floyd Toole ever wrote it all up in his recent book 'Sound
> Reproduction' -- which was glowingly reviewed by Kal Rubinson in
> Stereophile =A0-- for those who don't.

And yet the flagship speakers coming from his work at HK cost a cool
22K. So either HK are ripping the consumers off with their flagship
speakers or Toole and co. believe that SOTA playback performance does
come at a premium. 22K ain't couch change.

Scott[_6_]

May 16th 10, 07:34 PM

On May 13, 9:13=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> > (in article >):
>
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:>
>
> >>>> I recently participated in blind listening tests
> >>>> comparing a $12,000 speaker
> >>>> system from a well-known designer with excellent
> >>>> technical chops to a European-designed, China-built
> >>>> studio monitor system that sells for under $400 the
> >>>> pair. They did sound a little different from each
> >>>> other. =A0The listening panel was about evenly split as
> >>>> to which they preferred based on
> >>>> dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. =A0They all
> >>>> agreed that both pairs of
> >>>> speakers sounded very, very good.
>
> >>> So, what were the speakers?
>
> >> Behringer =A0B2031A
>
> > I have a pair of those connected to my computer. I use
> > them as "near-field" monitors when I'm using my computer
> > as a DAW. They're pretty good and well made, (I'm
> > actually a big Behringer fan and have lots of their gear.
> > They generally represent good value and performance for
> > money spent)),
>
> You may be under-appreciating what you have before you.
>
> > but the B2031As are similar to a lot of
> > near-field monitors in that price-range. For instance,
> > they have little in the way of bass below about 60 Hz.
>
> We were listening to classical orchestral and choir music, not rap. =A0Th=
e
> B2031s do have audible response below 60 Hz and it was good enough.

Classical orchestral music has particularly challenging and important
content in the deep bass.

>
> > I will say that they are better than ANY "audiophile"
> > speakers of that size at up to three times the price. But
> > a pair of Magnepan's new 1.7s will blow em out of the
> > water at $2000, as will M-L's little Source ES hybrid at
> > the same price. I do agree that they are a great buy at
> > less than $500/pair street price.
>
> Phrases like "blow them out of the water" does not exactly sound like the
> results of a careful evaluation to me. :-(

Hyperbole in the final analysis of a subjective evaluation has no
bearing on the care given to the protocols and execution of the
evaluation process.

Audio Empire

May 16th 10, 07:34 PM

On Sat, 15 May 2010 09:49:49 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>
>> snip<
>
>> There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to
>> compare
>> 2 speakers????
>>
>> Please notice that we're comparing loudspeakers, not live versus recorded.
>>
>> And also notice that much of what's wrong with live versus recorded
>> happens
>> at the live performance end of the system.
>>
>
> Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the
> "objectivist" philosophy extant today.
>
> IF, and only, IF you attend lots of live music concerts of your choice (in
> my case unamplified, but that is my choice) can you decided what set of
> speakers you think sound most like live, in your room, with your equipment.
> "Obective" comparative testing of speakers may be useful for development of
> speakers, but it is hardly a mechanism for deciding even which speakers are
> "best" or "preferred" when it comes to long term satisfaction. That comes
> from monadic evaluation against an imbedded sense of "rightness" about live
> sound.

Agreed. You and I are definitely of a single mind here about this subject.
Amplifiers and preamps and CD players are different because we assume that
they are so good nowadays that differences are apt to be small to
non-existent. In such a case, DBTs will tell us if there is a difference
between two devices of these types and if there are differences what are
their magnitudes and how important are they? This can be very useful in
determining whether one amp, costing 10X the price of another amplifier is,
from the sound it produces, worth that delta.

> And with all due respect to Sean Olive and Harmon International, despite a
> decades worth of objective testing there is hardly any consensus among pro
> audio folk or home audiophiles that their speakers outperform any number of
> competing designs when it comes to which speakers people feel best for their
> assigned tasks or tastes.

Also correct.
>
> If you listen to a lot of live music, and then carefully audition equipment
> both in-shop and at-home before making choices, you can assemble a system
> that is unfailingly musical (for music of your choice) and satisfying to you
> with nary a blind test in the process.

This is especially true with transducers (speakers, microphones, phono
cartridges) because these are the least waveform accurate of all audio
components.

Scott[_6_]

May 16th 10, 07:37 PM

On May 15, 1:42=A0pm, bob > wrote:
> On May 15, 12:49=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of =
the
> > "objectivist" philosophy extant today.
>
> So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time
> you had a symphony orchestra in your living room?

Why would you ask that? The correct, or at least better question
would be how close does his system sound to the last time he went to
see a good symphony orchestra in a good concert hall with good seats?
Your question is pretty useless.

>
> What? You've never had a symphony orchestra in your living room?
>
> See that's the trouble with subjectivists. They've cut live music out
> of the equation.

Frankly what I see is a lot of huge fallacies in your premises here.
One does not need to have heard a symphony orchestra in their living
room to be familiar with the sound of live symphonic music.

>
> > IF, and only, IF you attend lots of live music concerts of your choice =
(in
> > my case unamplified, but that is my choice) can you decided what set of
> > speakers you think sound most like live, in your room, with your equipm=
ent.
>
> Well, not really. Even if =A0you've only been to a few live events, you
> may still have a sense of what live music sounds like. And as it's
> your sense, that's all that matters.

No really, better familiarity with the reference will help in judging
what is closer to that reference.

>
> > "Obective" comparative testing of speakers may be useful for developmen=
t of
> > speakers, but it is hardly a mechanism for deciding even which speakers=
are
> > "best" or "preferred" when it comes to long term satisfaction =A0That c=
omes
> > from monadic evaluation against an imbedded sense of "rightness" about =
live
> > sound.
>
> Well if "monadic evaluation" is what you want to insist on (even
> though the experts in the field don't seem to agree), what's wrong
> with objective monadic evaluation?

Nothing other than inconvenience. IMO

Scott[_6_]

May 16th 10, 07:37 PM

On May 13, 2:07=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:21 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote

>
> > If you want to listen to the true quality of sound, then you must take
> > advantage of bias controlled tests.
>
> When I'm trying to decide whether a difference makes any difference at al=
l, I
> agree. But speakers are a matter of taste (because none are perfect and
> people pick and choose the characteristics of music that are important to
> them and tend to focus on those). and therefore DBTs are pretty worthless=
for
> comparing one speaker to another.

Bias effects are in play whether one is judging for differences or
preference under sighted conditions. Even when it is a matter of taste
bias effects affect the outcome of comparisons. So they are pretty far
from worthless if they are done well.

>
> > If you want to reinforce your prejudices, then avoid bias controlled te=
sts.
>
> I agree that bias controlled tests are the gold standard for finding out =
if
> there are significant differences between components, but they can't tell=
me
> which speakers are the most accurate (since all speakers are terribly fla=
wed,
> what would one use as the control?), nor can they tell me, ultimately, wh=
ich
> of all the speakers in a given price range that I like.

Bias controls do not make it any more difficult to make those
determinations. It is other aspects of the design and execution of any
comparison that will determine if they will tell you which speakers
are "the most accurate" or what you like in a given price range.
Nothing about blind protocols should ever prevent an otherwise
effective test for determining those aspects of audio from doing so.
All bias controls will do is control the biases they are designed to
control from affecting the outcome. IF the bias controls are designed
and implimented well.

Harry Lavo

May 16th 10, 08:11 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong
>> with much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today.
>
> And exactly which objectivist is uniquely cutting live music out of the
> discussion?
>
> Just tell me the occasions when you personally evaluated *any* audio
> component by means of direct comparison with a non trivial live musical
> performance, and the occasions when you did not. Simple counts of each
> will
> suffice.

I didn't say "direct comparison", I said comparing two speakers is not
nearly as relevant as comparing (monadically) the speakers reproduction
ability compared to the (remembered) sound of live music. But in my case,
that was extremely possible based on about a decade of semi-pro recording of
chamber music, orchestras and choruses, and folk-music, followed by the
ability to listen to copies of the tapes in my home system. Maybe a
hundred, hundred-and-fifty concerts?

In addition to many years of subscriptions to Carnegie Hall's visiting
orchestra's series, plus classical concerts elsewhere, plus many, many jazz
clubs and venues? Will that do?

For how this is relevant, if it escapes you, please see Audio Empires
description and my response in another post.

bob

May 16th 10, 08:12 PM

On May 16, 10:13=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:23:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to com=
pare
> > 2 speakers????
>
> To find out which is the more accurate of the two? You bet.

This is essentially an admission that it is impossible under any
realistic circumstances for a listener to determine which of two
speakers is more accurate (as you define it). Anyone who thinks he can
or does do this is therefore deluding himself.

<snip>

> It doesn't alter the fact taht a
> double blind comparison of two loudspeakers ultimately tells us nothing a=
bout
> either speaker's accuracy to the waveform being reproduced.

Again, I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the work of Olive and
Toole. They do precisely what you claim cannot be done.

bob

Audio Empire

May 16th 10, 08:20 PM

On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:46:20 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>> ...
<snip>

>> Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like
>> amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small
>> mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as
>> possible
>> - I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that
>> has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast.
>
> I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test was like that?

Since he doesn't feel like explaining any of the circumstances of the
test, and because his conclusions are fairly unlikely, I have no
alternative but to doubt the efficacy and the methodology (which he
hasn't revealed) of his tests. When I cite some double-blind test here
that I have been party to, I am careful to explain everything in some
detail and get all kinds of criticisms about the efficacy of the tests
and the conclusions drawn from it. Arny comes here and gives a sketchy
outline of a DBT that finds a pair of $400 mini-monitors equally
preferred over a pair of (unnamed) $12000 audiophile speakers, using a
methodology that isn't explained, music that is not identified and
circumstances that he says he doesn't recollect, and you, based on
your comment above, seem to accept HIS conclusions without question.

Is it any wonder that some of us doubt Arny's conclusions? Ands just
for the record, I merely said that it IS possible to design a test
which would minimize the differences between speakers by carefully
selecting the program material. I didn't actually accuse Arny of being
party to such a test. It's merely a possible methodology which COULD
account for the favorable comparison between an expensive pair of
speakers and a pair of self-powered cheap ones.

Audio Empire

May 17th 10, 02:06 AM

On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:12:28 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On May 16, 10:13=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:23:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to com=
> pare
>>> 2 speakers????
>>
>> To find out which is the more accurate of the two? You bet.
>
> This is essentially an admission that it is impossible under any
> realistic circumstances for a listener to determine which of two
> speakers is more accurate (as you define it). Anyone who thinks he can
> or does do this is therefore deluding himself.

I disagree. My memory of the what real music sounds like (at least in a
general way) allows me to eliminate many speakers right off the bat. This one
is too boomy; real bass doesn't sound like that, this one's tweeter is too
shrill, or metallic, or too dull; real highs don't sound like that either.
This other one has no bass, and is too reticent in the midrange, etc. etc.,
etc.

I hear a lot of live music. Like Harry, I record, often. I hear live music
several times a week; Orchestral, symphonic winds, chamber classical, as well
as jazz. My memory of what live music sounds like stays pretty fresh. But
even that isn't necessary. I have audio-hobbyist friends who hear live music
much less often than I do, yet their sense of which speakers are the more
accurate, is, for the most part very good as well.
>
> <snip>

Audio Empire

May 17th 10, 02:07 AM

On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:37:25 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On May 13, 2:07=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:21 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>
>>
>>> If you want to listen to the true quality of sound, then you must take
>>> advantage of bias controlled tests.
>>
>> When I'm trying to decide whether a difference makes any difference at al=
> l, I
>> agree. But speakers are a matter of taste (because none are perfect and
>> people pick and choose the characteristics of music that are important to
>> them and tend to focus on those). and therefore DBTs are pretty worthless=
> for
>> comparing one speaker to another.
>
> Bias effects are in play whether one is judging for differences or
> preference under sighted conditions. Even when it is a matter of taste
> bias effects affect the outcome of comparisons. So they are pretty far
> from worthless if they are done well.
>
>>
>>> If you want to reinforce your prejudices, then avoid bias controlled te=
> sts.
>>
>> I agree that bias controlled tests are the gold standard for finding out =
> if
>> there are significant differences between components, but they can't tell=
> me
>> which speakers are the most accurate (since all speakers are terribly fla=
> wed,
>> what would one use as the control?), nor can they tell me, ultimately, wh=
> ich
>> of all the speakers in a given price range that I like.
>
> Bias controls do not make it any more difficult to make those
> determinations. It is other aspects of the design and execution of any
> comparison that will determine if they will tell you which speakers
> are "the most accurate" or what you like in a given price range.
> Nothing about blind protocols should ever prevent an otherwise
> effective test for determining those aspects of audio from doing so.
> All bias controls will do is control the biases they are designed to
> control from affecting the outcome. IF the bias controls are designed
> and implimented well.
>

Bias controlled tests, ultimately compare one one set of speaker compromises
to another set of compromises, and tell me very little about which is the
more accurate.

Scott[_6_]

May 17th 10, 03:07 PM

On May 16, 6:07=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:37:25 -0700, Scott wrote

>
> > =A0Bias controls do not make it any more difficult to make those
> > determinations. It is other aspects of the design and execution of any
> > comparison that will determine if they will tell you which speakers
> > are "the most accurate" or what you like in a given price range.
> > Nothing about blind protocols should ever prevent an otherwise
> > effective test for determining those aspects of audio from doing so.
> > All bias controls will do is control the biases they are designed to
> > control from affecting the outcome. IF the bias controls are designed
> > and implimented well.
>
> Bias controlled tests, ultimately compare one one set of speaker compromi=
ses
> to another set of compromises, and tell me very little about which is the
> more accurate.

How does removing the bias controls of any given test allow the test
to tell you *more* about which speaker is more accurate? If a given
test is telling you little about which is the more accurate speaker
then the flaw in that test lies in the design of that test not in any
particular bias controls that may be implimented in that test unless
those specific bias controls are causing some sort of problem. That is
not an intrinsic propperty of bias controls. If that is happening then
the bias controls are being poorly designed or poorly implimented.

Any test one designs for measuring the relative accuracy of speakers
against some sort of reference by ear can only be helped by well
designed and well executed bias controls. If you disagree then please
offer an argument to support *that.* There is no reason to talk about
other bias controlled test designs that are simply not designed to
measure percieved relative accuracy of loudspeakers.

Arny Krueger

May 17th 10, 03:09 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On May 11, 12:23 pm, Dick Pierce
> > wrote:
>
>> But, that being said, the ability to produce an under $1k
>> speaker of high quality is a function primarily of
>> designer competence and knowledge as well as marketing
>> and
>> sales prowess, both of which are in increasing short
>> supply in the high-end or component audio market,
>> which itself is becoming a vanishingly small portion of
>> the total audio market.
>
> So are these just grossly overpriced speakers?
> http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=ghsfs#/page2/
> If one can produce something of "high quality" for under
> 1K what does one get from these guys for the extra 21K?

I would presume that all those drivers provide more dynamic range and better
directivity control at low-middle frequencies. The dyamic range reserves may
have no audible signficance at normal listening levels, and the directivity
control may have minimal benefits in many fairly absorbtive listening rooms.

Andrew Haley

May 17th 10, 03:43 PM

Scott > wrote:
> On May 15, 1:42=A0pm, bob > wrote:
>> On May 15, 12:49=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>
>> > Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with
>> > much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today.
>>
>> So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time
>> you had a symphony orchestra in your living room?
>
> Why would you ask that? The correct, or at least better question
> would be how close does his system sound to the last time he went to
> see a good symphony orchestra in a good concert hall with good seats?

There seems to be a presumption here that the sound in a concert hall
is ideal. But there are fairly well-known acoustic phenomena such as
the "seat-dip effect" where there is a dip of some 10-15 dB over two
octaves, centred on about 150 Hz. (This is just an example: real
halls have other problems too.) We can to some extent compensate for
this when we listen at concerts, but it's highly questionable whether
we want the sound of real halls in our homes.

This is a matter of goals: do we want to replicate the concertgoer's
experience, or the "pure" sound of a performance, whatever that may
be? There are no simple answers.

Andrew.

Arny Krueger

May 17th 10, 03:45 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:46:20 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>
>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>>> message ...
> <snip>
>
>>> Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences
>>> in things like amplifiers and speakers. I could easily
>>> construct a DBT where a small mini-monitor and a large
>>> full-range system would sound as similar as possible
>>> - I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or
>>> something similar that has no bass and little in the
>>> way of dynamic contrast.
>>
>> I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test
>> was like that?
>
> Since he doesn't feel like explaining any of the
> circumstances of the test, and because his conclusions
> are fairly unlikely, I have no alternative but to doubt
> the efficacy and the methodology (which he hasn't
> revealed) of his tests.

The speaker evaluation was similar to zillions of other speaker evaluations
that one finds on the web except that it was level matched, time-synched,
and blind. The spekers were set behind an acoustically transparent barrier
that prevented the listeners from knowing what they were listening to at any
particualar moment.

> When I cite some double-blind
> test here that I have been party to, I am careful to
> explain everything in some detail and get all kinds of
> criticisms about the efficacy of the tests and the
> conclusions drawn from it.

No conclusions were drawn from the test other than that it was hard to form
a preference for one speaker as compared to the other. If there was a
conclusion, then the conclusion was a non-conclusion.

> Arny comes here and gives a
> sketchy outline of a DBT that finds a pair of $400
> mini-monitors equally preferred over a pair of (unnamed)
> $12000 audiophile speakers, using a methodology that
> isn't explained, music that is not identified and
> circumstances that he says he doesn't recollect, and you,
> based on your comment above, seem to accept HIS
> conclusions without question.

I was simply presenting a relevant data point in rebuttal to some pretty
dogmatic global statements that were made about speaker sound quality and
price.

> Is it any wonder that some of us doubt Arny's
> conclusions?

Such conclusions as were reached weren't just mine.

> Ands just for the record, I merely said that
> it IS possible to design a test which would minimize the
> differences between speakers by carefully selecting the
> program material.

Here's exactly what you said:

"> Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
> instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the
> $1K level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and
> that's the Magnepan MMG at $599.

My story shows that we had no difficulty at all in finding decent speakers
that are widely available for far less than $1K.

BTW, the purpose of the evaluation was *not* price/performance but rather
the goal was to evaluate loudspeaker "Acoustic Scene" (AS) formation, or if
you will soundstaging. We obtained a good AS with the $12,000 speaker pair
and simply wondered if less costly speakers would be similarly effective.
The less costly speakers were surprisingly effective, and that is what I
reported.

AFAIK the Behringer "Truth" monitors are not exceptional, but in fact
representative a large group of good-sounding speakers that cost much less
than $1,000 or even $599.

I think the moral of the story is that hyperbole is easy to effectively
contradict. ;-)

Arny Krueger

May 17th 10, 03:46 PM

"dave a" > wrote in message

> On 5/15/2010 4:47 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>> This begs the question how anyone ever had an opinon
>> about a speaker's sound quality without ready reference
>> to a string quartet. We've got plenty of factual records of many people
>> on
>> this forum opining long and hard about which speakers
>> sound good and which sound bad. I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm
>> guessing that not
>> one of them had a real live string quartet present for
>> any of those speaker evaluations and/or comparisons.
>>
>> This is yet another example of how people hear the words
>> "DBT" and immediately pile a ton of baggage on to the
>> conversation. They pile on requirements that they
>> themselves have paid little or no attention in their own
>> personal evaluations. It is all obfuscation.

> Since when is a string quartet the standard reference?

Good question.

> What if I like hard rock or a cappella choir?

Good question.

> I've been
> to rock concerts where the hall acoustics were terrible
> and the recorded versions of the same band sound much
> better on almost any system. And, I really doubt my
> living room would sound that good with either a choir or
> a rock band.

I've had many similar experiences.

> I thought the discussion was about comparing two speaker
> systems, not speakers to live performances.

Agreed. It would appear that the discussion is being distracted by someone
dragging out a figurative red herring.

Harry Lavo

May 17th 10, 04:23 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>

>snip a irrelevent to following point<

>
> BTW, the purpose of the evaluation was *not* price/performance but rather
> the goal was to evaluate loudspeaker "Acoustic Scene" (AS) formation, or
> if
> you will soundstaging. We obtained a good AS with the $12,000 speaker
> pair
> and simply wondered if less costly speakers would be similarly effective.
> The less costly speakers were surprisingly effective, and that is what I
> reported.
>

>snip, as not relevant to my point<

If you were testing for soundstaging, how were the speakers arranged behind
the screen such that one did not interfere with the other. Do you know? If
the small were on stands, as typically the would be, would not the
presumably larger $12,000 interfere? And if the smaller were set on top of
the large, is this a truly accourate representation of them, since the
larger speaker would to some degree act as a planar bass reinforcer?

Finally, is this a test you participated in, or only one you are reporting
on? Since you say "we" I assume you were there.

And you still haven't indicated who sponsored the test, and whom the
listeners were. May I assume the test was run by your audio club and the
listeners were your buddies in the club? Was a manufacturer involved?

Arny Krueger

May 17th 10, 07:14 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> If you were testing for soundstaging, how were the
> speakers arranged behind the screen such that one did not
> interfere with the other.

Each speaker was positioned separately and it was found that different
locations were optimal for each loudspeaker. The speakers were
technologically different. One pair was bipolar and the other was unipolar.

> If the small
> were on stands, as typically the would be, would not the
> presumably larger $12,000 interfere?

Each speaker was positioned separately and it was found that the presence of
the other speaker had no consequences.

> Finally, is this a test you participated in, or only one
> you are reporting on? Since you say "we" I assume you
> were there.

I participated.

> And you still haven't indicated who sponsored the test,

It was a private test that was open to club members and other members of the
audio community in this area. Several have designed audio systems that
retailed for well over $1,000 and that have sold over 100,000 units each
person. One other was an AES fellow. Two have had numerous articles
published in the audiophile press.

> and whom the listeners were.

The listeners were audio engineers and/or long time audiophiles with
decade(s) of experience in organizing and participating in formal and
informal tests.

> Was a manufacturer involved?

The manufacturer of the more expensive system loaned his equipment. Note
that his equipment performed very, very well in the estimation of the
listeners. It was beautifully made of expensive woods and speaker
components.

Audio Empire

May 17th 10, 10:49 PM

On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:07:58 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On May 16, 6:07=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:37:25 -0700, Scott wrote
>
>>
>>> =A0Bias controls do not make it any more difficult to make those
>>> determinations. It is other aspects of the design and execution of any
>>> comparison that will determine if they will tell you which speakers
>>> are "the most accurate" or what you like in a given price range.
>>> Nothing about blind protocols should ever prevent an otherwise
>>> effective test for determining those aspects of audio from doing so.
>>> All bias controls will do is control the biases they are designed to
>>> control from affecting the outcome. IF the bias controls are designed
>>> and implimented well.
>>
>> Bias controlled tests, ultimately compare one one set of speaker compromi=
> ses
>> to another set of compromises, and tell me very little about which is the
>> more accurate.
>
> How does removing the bias controls of any given test allow the test
> to tell you *more* about which speaker is more accurate? If a given
> test is telling you little about which is the more accurate speaker
> then the flaw in that test lies in the design of that test not in any
> particular bias controls that may be implimented in that test unless
> those specific bias controls are causing some sort of problem. That is
> not an intrinsic propperty of bias controls. If that is happening then
> the bias controls are being poorly designed or poorly implimented.
>
> Any test one designs for measuring the relative accuracy of speakers
> against some sort of reference by ear can only be helped by well
> designed and well executed bias controls. If you disagree then please
> offer an argument to support *that.* There is no reason to talk about
> other bias controlled test designs that are simply not designed to
> measure percieved relative accuracy of loudspeakers.
>

I think you misunderstand me. Comparing one speaker to another using bias
controlled tests like DBT and ABX tells me nothing in and of itself. HOWEVER,
if I am allowed to have this same setup over a long period of time (say
several hours to several days), using recordings of my own choosing, I will
be able to compare BOTH to my memory of what real, live music sounds like and
be able to tell which of the two speakers is the more "realistic" (or, if you
prefer, accurate to my memory of the sound of live music). Of course, this
assumes that an accurate DBT test can be devised for speakers, which I
seriously doubt.

For instance: How do you normalize such a test? Suppose one speaker is 89
dB/Watt and the other is 93 dB/Watt? You'd have to use a really accurate SPL
meter. Few have that. I have a Radio Shack SPL meter like most of us, but
it's probably not accurate enough to set speaker levels within less than 1 dB
for such a test. Secondly, speakers (and rooms) are NOT amplifiers or CD
decks with ruler-flat frequency response. How do you make them the same
level? You certainly don't want to put T-Pads between the amp and speakers to
equalize them as that would screw-up the impedance matching between amp and
speaker. All that I can come up with is that you not only need two sets of
speakers for such a test, you'll also need two IDENTICAL stereo amplifiers
with some way to trim them on their inputs to give equal SPL for both the 89
dB/Watt speaker and the 93 dB/Watt speaker - and at what frequency? Each
speaker can vary wildly from one frequency to another and these frequency
response anomalies are exacerbated by the room in which the test is being
conducted, as well as by the placement of each set of speakers in that room
and It would be difficult to have both test samples occupy the same space at
the same time. Thirdly, you can set them to both to produce a single
frequency, say 1KHz, at exactly (less than 1 dB difference) the same level
but what happens when you switch frequencies to, say, 400 Hz or 5 KHz? One
speaker could exhibit as much as 6 dB difference in volume (or more) from the
other depending upon whether speaker "A", for instance, has a 3 dB peak at
400 Hz (with respect to 1KHz) and speaker "B" has a three dB trough at 400 Hz
(again referenced to 1 KHz).

It seems to me that such a test would be incredibly difficult to pull off,
in any environment but an anechoic chamber (to eliminate room interaction)
and even then would only really work for two speakers who's frequency
response curves were very similar. Even so, people's biases are going to
still come into play. If one likes big bass, the speaker which has the best
bass is going to be his pick, every time. If a listener likes pin-point
imaging, he's going to pick the speaker that images the better of the two -
every time.

These are just a few of my real-world doubts as to the efficacy of DBT
testing for speakers and why I believe that they are not only impractical
(because they would be darned difficult to set up), but would not yield any
kind of a consensus as to which speaker was the most accurate.

One might as well use the old "Consumer Reports" method of testing speakers:
Measure the frequency response with a with an oscillator in a "standard room"
(one that they used for all speaker tests) and plot out each speaker's
response on a chart. Draw two arbitrary lines on that graph, one at say +2dB
and one at, say, -2dB, and then count how many times the frequency response
graph of each speaker tested wanders over those lines. The one whose
frequency response crosses those lines the least number of times wins and
gets rated as the best speaker of the bunch. (yes, they really did this!).
It's about as telling about overall speaker performance as would be the kind
of DBT that most mortals would be able to set-up.

Audio Empire

May 17th 10, 10:54 PM

On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:45:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
<snip>

>> And just for the record, I merely said that
>> it IS possible to design a test which would minimize the
>> differences between speakers by carefully selecting the
>> program material.
>
> Here's exactly what you said:
>
> "> Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
>> instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the
>> $1K level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and
>> that's the Magnepan MMG at $599.

That's nice. Unfortunately the statement of mine that you just quoted has
nothing whatsoever to do with the statement I made about the possibility of
being able to rig a test where many of a speaker's attributes (or
shortcomings) could be masked by the types of program material played.
>
> My story shows that we had no difficulty at all in finding decent speakers
> that are widely available for far less than $1K.
>
> BTW, the purpose of the evaluation was *not* price/performance but rather
> the goal was to evaluate loudspeaker "Acoustic Scene" (AS) formation, or if
> you will soundstaging. We obtained a good AS with the $12,000 speaker pair
> and simply wondered if less costly speakers would be similarly effective.
> The less costly speakers were surprisingly effective, and that is what I
> reported.

It's a well-known fact that small monitor-type speakers (of the kind
pioneered by the BBC), because they more closely approach the ideal "point
source" tend to image better than speakers with large radiating surfaces.
That conclusion should have been foregone.

> AFAIK the Behringer "Truth" monitors are not exceptional, but in fact
> representative a large group of good-sounding speakers that cost much less
> than $1,000 or even $599.

I think that I agreed with you on that point at the beginning of this thread.
That's why I use them to edit my recordings with and have used them on
location as monitors (when I've been allowed to set-up in a separate room
from where the performance was taking place).
>
> I think the moral of the story is that hyperbole is easy to effectively
> contradict. ;-)

Hyperbole is for effect and should be taken as such 8^)

Harry Lavo

May 17th 10, 10:54 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> If you were testing for soundstaging, how were the
>> speakers arranged behind the screen such that one did not
>> interfere with the other.
>
> Each speaker was positioned separately and it was found that different
> locations were optimal for each loudspeaker. The speakers were
> technologically different. One pair was bipolar and the other was
> unipolar.
>
>> If the small
>> were on stands, as typically the would be, would not the
>> presumably larger $12,000 interfere?
>
> Each speaker was positioned separately and it was found that the presence
> of
> the other speaker had no consequences.
>
>> Finally, is this a test you participated in, or only one
>> you are reporting on? Since you say "we" I assume you
>> were there.
>
> I participated.
>
>> And you still haven't indicated who sponsored the test,
>
> It was a private test that was open to club members and other members of
> the
> audio community in this area. Several have designed audio systems that
> retailed for well over $1,000 and that have sold over 100,000 units each
> person. One other was an AES fellow. Two have had numerous articles
> published in the audiophile press.
>
>> and whom the listeners were.
>
> The listeners were audio engineers and/or long time audiophiles with
> decade(s) of experience in organizing and participating in formal and
> informal tests.
>
>> Was a manufacturer involved?
>
> The manufacturer of the more expensive system loaned his equipment. Note
> that his equipment performed very, very well in the estimation of the
> listeners. It was beautifully made of expensive woods and speaker
> components.
>

Thank you Arny...although I had to ask three times to get this info...thank
you for finally giving it.

I do have concern about your first answer and about the screening in
general.

You mentioned the speakers were screened. It is hard to find material that
is acoustically transparent and yet visually opaque. Were the two sets of
speakers at all muffled in the high frequencies by the screening? Were they
visible in vague outline?

Secondly, if the speakers were seperately and independently placed for best
sound, wouldn't listeners be able to tell just by slight shifts in
soundstage which speakers were which?

And finally, you say that the speakers did not affect each other's
soundstaging. For that to be highly likely, the larger speakers most likely
would have to be planar or electrostatic in nature, presenting their "edge"
to the smaller speakers. If the larger speakers were box speakers, then
despite your claims the soundstage of the smaller speakers must have been
affected to a least a slight degree....which kind of challenges the whole
idea of testing soundstaging this way (I can think of a monadic way to do it
without this problem. :-) ) Can you confirm or deny the type of large
speaker?

One follow on question.....I know you and many of your friends are high on
Berringher.....how many of you in the test would you estimate own the
Beringher monitors or their kissin' kin?

Scott[_6_]

May 18th 10, 02:48 PM

On May 17, 7:43=A0am, Andrew Haley >
wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
> > On May 15, 1:42=3DA0pm, bob > wrote:
> >> On May 15, 12:49=3DA0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
> >> > Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with
> >> > much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today.
>
> >> So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time
> >> you had a symphony orchestra in your living room?
>
> > Why would you ask that? The correct, or at least =A0better question
> > would be how close does his system sound to the last time he went to
> > see a good symphony orchestra in a good concert hall with good seats?
>
> There seems to be a presumption here that the sound in a concert hall
> is ideal. =A0But there are fairly well-known acoustic phenomena such as
> the "seat-dip effect" where there is a dip of some 10-15 dB over two
> octaves, centred on about 150 Hz. =A0(This is just an example: real
> halls have other problems too.) =A0We can to some extent compensate for
> this when we listen at concerts, but it's highly questionable whether
> we want the sound of real halls in our homes.
>
> This is a matter of goals: do we want to replicate the concertgoer's
> experience, or the "pure" sound of a performance, whatever that may
> be? =A0There are no simple answers.
>
> Andrew.

You raise an important issue. Yes the presumption is that the sound of
the concert hall is ideal for a symphonic orchestra. But this is too
broad to be true. There are bad halls and there are bad seats in many
good halls. When *I* talk about live acoustic music as a reference I
am refering to live music that excels. That means excellent music
played on excellent instruments by excellent musicians in an excellent
hall from an excellent position in that hall. The reason to strive for
such sound is because IMO it sets the standard for aesthetic musical
beauty.

Arny Krueger

May 18th 10, 02:49 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> I do have concern about your first answer and about the
> screening in general.
>
> You mentioned the speakers were screened. It is hard to
> find material that is acoustically transparent and yet
> visually opaque.

It was not opaque cloth. The effect of opaqueness was achieved by lighting -
like a theatrical scrim.

> Were the two sets of speakers at all
> muffled in the high frequencies by the screening? Were
> they visible in vague outline?

No and no.

> Secondly, if the speakers were seperately and
> independently placed for best sound, wouldn't listeners
> be able to tell just by slight shifts in soundstage which
> speakers were which?

No. Both speakers projected soundstanges that were alike enough, and there
was nothing about them that gave any clues as to the speaker's technology.

> And finally, you say that the speakers did not affect
> each other's soundstaging. For that to be highly likely,
> the larger speakers most likely would have to be planar
> or electrostatic in nature, presenting their "edge" to
> the smaller speakers.

I'm not going to try to match reality up with someone's personal acoustical
theory.

Andrew Haley

May 18th 10, 03:56 PM

Scott > wrote:
> On May 17, 7:43?am, Andrew Haley >
> wrote:
>> Scott > wrote:
>> > On May 15, 1:42=A0pm, bob > wrote:
>> >> On May 15, 12:49=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with
>> >> > much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today.
>>
>> >> So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time
>> >> you had a symphony orchestra in your living room?
>>
>> > Why would you ask that? The correct, or at least better question
>> > would be how close does his system sound to the last time he went to
>> > see a good symphony orchestra in a good concert hall with good seats?
>>
>> There seems to be a presumption here that the sound in a concert
>> hall is ideal. But there are fairly well-known acoustic phenomena
>> such as the "seat-dip effect" where there is a dip of some 10-15 dB
>> over two octaves, centred on about 150 Hz. (This is just an
>> example: real halls have other problems too.) We can to some
>> extent compensate for this when we listen at concerts, but it's
>> highly questionable whether we want the sound of real halls in our
>> homes.
>>
>> This is a matter of goals: do we want to replicate the
>> concertgoer's experience, or the "pure" sound of a performance,
>> whatever that may be? There are no simple answers.
>
> You raise an important issue. Yes the presumption is that the sound
> of the concert hall is ideal for a symphonic orchestra. But this is
> too broad to be true. There are bad halls and there are bad seats in
> many good halls. When *I* talk about live acoustic music as a
> reference I am refering to live music that excels. That means
> excellent music played on excellent instruments by excellent
> musicians in an excellent hall from an excellent position in that
> hall. The reason to strive for such sound is because IMO it sets the
> standard for aesthetic musical beauty.

Well, yeah. But the claim was that "I know what real music sounds
like in a real space, and that sets the standard for musical
reproduction." But that seems to me more of a Platonic ideal than
anything that happens in reality, or at least not very often. My
experience, if I close my eyes at a concert and try to imagine myself
at home, is that the sound of real halls is very far from ideal. And
also, occasionally it would be nice to turn the volume up a little bit
-- or to turn down what appears to be an outing from the emphysema
ward in the rows behind me.

One other thing that's worth mentioning is the highly non-uniform
radiation pattern of string instruments, and the way they sound very
different (brighter, clearer) close up than in the body of the concert
hall. OK, so you can insist on ultra-minimal microphone setups to
replicate the sound of that hall, as it would be heard by a mamber of
the audience. But then you're prioritizing the sound of the hall over
the sound of the music! I think that much reverberation sounds
excessive in the home, and you would hear the music more clearly with
a bit less reverb than you'd get in a hall.

I know this may sound heretical, but maybe the sound at the position
of the microphones above the orchestra is *better* than that of any
seat in the hall. Also, maybe it really is useful for a balance
engineer to be able to turn up the solist in a concerto.

In other words, I am denying that your ideal sound of an excellent
hall from an excellent position in that hall is any sort of ideal at
all.

Andrew.

Audio Empire

May 18th 10, 09:17 PM

On Tue, 18 May 2010 06:49:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I do have concern about your first answer and about the
>> screening in general.
>>
>> You mentioned the speakers were screened. It is hard to
>> find material that is acoustically transparent and yet
>> visually opaque.
>
> It was not opaque cloth. The effect of opaqueness was achieved by lighting -
> like a theatrical scrim.
>
>> Were the two sets of speakers at all
>> muffled in the high frequencies by the screening? Were
>> they visible in vague outline?
>
> No and no.
>
>> Secondly, if the speakers were seperately and
>> independently placed for best sound, wouldn't listeners
>> be able to tell just by slight shifts in soundstage which
>> speakers were which?
>
> No. Both speakers projected soundstanges that were alike enough, and there
> was nothing about them that gave any clues as to the speaker's technology.
>
>> And finally, you say that the speakers did not affect
>> each other's soundstaging. For that to be highly likely,
>> the larger speakers most likely would have to be planar
>> or electrostatic in nature, presenting their "edge" to
>> the smaller speakers.
>
> I'm not going to try to match reality up with someone's personal acoustical
> theory.
>

My question is what was used to insure that the two speakers were exactly the
same loudness across the entire audio spectrum? Also, how much did the fact
that the Behringers are self-powered and the "not named" $12000 audiophile
speakers required a separate (and entirely different) amp to power them
affect the results?

Arny Krueger

May 18th 10, 10:26 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> My question is what was used to insure that the two
> speakers were exactly the same loudness across the entire
> audio spectrum?

Didn't happen. The speakers had slightly different frequency responses at
various listening locations.

> Also, how much did the fact that the
> Behringers are self-powered and the "not named" $12000
> audiophile speakers required a separate (and entirely
> different) amp to power them affect the results?

We didn't know or care how the speakers we were listening to were made. It
was all about sound quality.

Scott[_8_]

May 19th 10, 07:19 PM

On May 17, 2:49=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:07:58 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 6:07=3DA0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:37:25 -0700, Scott wrote
>
> >>> =3DA0Bias controls do not make it any more difficult to make those
> >>> determinations. It is other aspects of the design and execution of an=
y
> >>> comparison that will determine if they will tell you which speakers
> >>> are "the most accurate" or what you like in a given price range.
> >>> Nothing about blind protocols should ever prevent an otherwise
> >>> effective test for determining those aspects of audio from doing so.
> >>> All bias controls will do is control the biases they are designed to
> >>> control from affecting the outcome. IF the bias controls are designed
> >>> and implimented well.
>
> >> Bias controlled tests, ultimately compare one one set of speaker compr=
omi=3D
> > ses
> >> to another set of compromises, and tell me very little about which is =
the
> >> more accurate.
>
> > How does removing the bias controls of any given test allow the test
> > to tell you *more* about which speaker is more accurate? If a given
> > test is telling you little about which is the more accurate speaker
> > then the flaw in that test lies in the design of that test not in any
> > particular bias controls that may be implimented in that test unless
> > those specific bias controls are causing some sort of problem. That is
> > not an intrinsic propperty of bias controls. If that is happening then
> > the bias controls are being poorly designed or poorly implimented.
>
> > Any test one designs for measuring the relative accuracy of speakers
> > against some sort of reference by ear can only be helped by well
> > designed and well executed bias controls. If you disagree then please
> > offer an argument to support *that.* There is no reason to talk about
> > other bias controlled test designs that are simply not designed to
> > measure percieved relative accuracy of loudspeakers.
>
> I think you misunderstand me. Comparing one speaker to another using bias
> controlled tests like DBT and ABX tells me nothing in and of itself.

As I said, lets not talk about tests that are poorly designed for the
task at hand. ABX is merely a small subset of bias controlled testing.
There is more in this world than an ABX test when it comes to bias
controls. The vast majority of DBTs in this world actually are not
ABX. You have to design a test that measures what you want to measure.
In this case it is accuracy of speakers. *Then* you design bias
controls to take bias out of the equation. This isn't about ABX.

> HOWEVER,
> if I am allowed to have this same setup over a long period of time (say
> several hours to several days), using recordings of my own choosing, I wi=
ll
> be able to compare BOTH to my memory of what real, live music sounds like=
and
> be able to tell which of the two speakers is the more "realistic" (or, if=
you
> prefer, accurate to my memory of the sound of live music).

OK now please tell me how if you were to do this with bias controls in
place it would make the audition less informative?

>=A0Of course, this
> assumes that an accurate DBT test can be devised for speakers, which I
> seriously doubt.

Why? All we are talking about is controlling bias effects.

>
> For instance: How do you normalize such a test?

How do you normalize such a test under sighted conditions? Do it that
way and then impliment the bias controls.

> Suppose one speaker is 89
> dB/Watt and the other is 93 dB/Watt? You'd have to use a really accurate =
SPL
> meter. Few have that. I have a Radio Shack SPL meter like most of us, but
> it's probably not accurate enough to set speaker levels within less than =
1 dB
> for such a test.

Seems like an issue that is completely independent of bias controls.

>=A0Secondly, speakers (and rooms) are NOT amplifiers or CD
> decks with ruler-flat frequency response. How do you make them the same
> level? You certainly don't want to put T-Pads between the amp and speaker=
s to
> equalize them as that would screw-up the impedance matching between amp a=
nd
> speaker.

A fair question. But,again, how is this an issue with bias controls?
How do bias controls affect this problem?

>=A0All that I can come up with is that you not only need two sets of
> speakers for such a test, you'll also need two IDENTICAL stereo amplifier=
s
> with some way to trim them on their inputs to give equal SPL for both the=
89
> dB/Watt speaker and the 93 dB/Watt speaker - and at what frequency? Each
> speaker can vary wildly from one frequency to another and these frequency
> response anomalies are exacerbated by the room in which the test is being
> conducted, as well as by the placement of each set of speakers in that ro=
om
> and It would be difficult to have both test samples occupy the same space=
at
> the same time. Thirdly, you can set them to both to produce a single
> frequency, say 1KHz, at exactly (less than 1 dB difference) the same =A0l=
evel
> but what happens when you switch frequencies to, say, 400 Hz or 5 KHz? On=
e
> speaker could exhibit as much as 6 dB difference in volume (or more) from=
the
> other depending upon whether speaker "A", for instance, has a 3 dB peak a=
t
> 400 Hz (with respect to 1KHz) and speaker "B" has a three dB trough at 40=
0 Hz
> (again referenced to 1 KHz).

All legitimate concerns none of which have anything to do with bias
controls. You face these issues whether you listen with biases in play
or controlled.

>
> It seems to me that such a test would be incredibly difficult =A0to pull =
off,
> in any environment but an anechoic chamber (to eliminate room interaction=
)
> and even then would only really work for two speakers who's frequency
> response curves were very similar. Even so, people's biases are going to
> still come into play. If one likes big bass, the speaker which has the be=
st
> bass is going to be his pick, every time. If a listener likes pin-point
> imaging, he's going to pick the speaker that images the better of the two=
-
> every time.
>
> These are just a few of my real-world =A0doubts as to the efficacy of DBT
> testing for speakers and why I believe that they are not only impractical
> (because they would be darned difficult to set up), but would not yield a=
ny
> kind of a consensus as to which speaker was the most accurate.

None of the concerns you have expressed are affected by the
implimentation of well designed bias controls. You certainly have
touched upon some of the many issues facing any consumer in comparing
speakers but those issues are issues when comparing under sighted
conditions.

Audio Empire[_2_]

May 19th 10, 07:19 PM

On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:26:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> My question is what was used to insure that the two
>> speakers were exactly the same loudness across the entire
>> audio spectrum?
>
> Didn't happen. The speakers had slightly different frequency responses at
> various listening locations.

That disqualifies the results in my estimation.
>
>> Also, how much did the fact that the
>> Behringers are self-powered and the "not named" $12000
>> audiophile speakers required a separate (and entirely
>> different) amp to power them affect the results?
>
> We didn't know or care how the speakers we were listening to were made. It
> was all about sound quality.
>

My point is that you were listening to TWO variables, The two amps and the
two speakers. That pretty much disqualifies the results as well.

If your point in citing this DBT was to make points for that testing
methodology of analyzing speakers, I think you picked a poor example.

You can see that the methodology is seriously flawed, in this test (as you
have explained it), do you not?

Scott[_8_]

May 19th 10, 07:20 PM

On May 18, 7:56=A0am, Andrew Haley >
wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
> > On May 17, 7:43?am, Andrew Haley >
> > wrote:
> >> Scott > wrote:
> >> > On May 15, 1:42=3DA0pm, bob > wrote:
> >> >> On May 15, 12:49=3DA0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
> >> >> > Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with
> >> >> > much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today.
>
> >> >> So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time
> >> >> you had a symphony orchestra in your living room?
>
> >> > Why would you ask that? The correct, or at least =A0better question
> >> > would be how close does his system sound to the last time he went to
> >> > see a good symphony orchestra in a good concert hall with good seats=
?
>
> >> There seems to be a presumption here that the sound in a concert
> >> hall is ideal. =A0But there are fairly well-known acoustic phenomena
> >> such as the "seat-dip effect" where there is a dip of some 10-15 dB
> >> over two octaves, centred on about 150 Hz. =A0(This is just an
> >> example: real halls have other problems too.) =A0We can to some
> >> extent compensate for this when we listen at concerts, but it's
> >> highly questionable whether we want the sound of real halls in our
> >> homes.
>
> >> This is a matter of goals: do we want to replicate the
> >> concertgoer's experience, or the "pure" sound of a performance,
> >> whatever that may be? =A0There are no simple answers.
>
> > You raise an important issue. Yes the presumption is that the sound
> > of the concert hall is ideal for a symphonic orchestra. But this is
> > too broad to be true. There are bad halls and there are bad seats in
> > many good halls. When *I* talk about live acoustic music as a
> > reference I am refering to live music that excels. That means
> > excellent music played on excellent instruments by excellent
> > musicians in an excellent hall from an excellent position in that
> > hall. The reason to strive for such sound is because IMO it sets the
> > standard for aesthetic musical beauty.
>
> Well, yeah. =A0But the claim was that "I know what real music sounds
> like in a real space, and that sets the standard for musical
> reproduction."

Who are you quoting here? Not me. But this claim of some one elses
still goes to the heart of the matter. Most playback sounds little
like anything live. IME even bad halls sound better than most playback
when we are talking orchestral music.

> =A0But that seems to me more of a Platonic ideal than
> anything that happens in reality, or at least not very often.

I would disagree very strongly. I pretty consistantly get much better
sound from live orchestral music than I hear from playback in general
by a country mile. Now if we limit the comparison to my system with my
choice minimalist recordings then the comparison actually gets a bit
more interesting and competitive. But that is because I use my
experience with live music and my experience with hifi to build such a
system and collection of recordings. Now when I compare my system and
those recordings to the vast majority of other systems and orchestral
recordings that I have heard it's no contest. Mine is in another
league. That was the point of it all.

> =A0My
> experience, if I close my eyes at a concert and try to imagine myself
> at home, is that the sound of real halls is very far from ideal.

That is your experience not mine. Most of my concert experience over
the past few years has been at Disney Hall. So maybe I am just
spoiled. They really raised the bar with that hall. The very best
sound I have ever experienced from any orchestra was there. No hifi
has ever touched that experience.

>=A0And
> also, occasionally it would be nice to turn the volume up a little bit
> -- or to turn down what appears to be an outing from the emphysema
> ward in the rows behind me.

It depends on where you sit doesn't it? I think I made that point
already.

>
> One other thing that's worth mentioning is the highly non-uniform
> radiation pattern of string instruments, and the way they sound very
> different (brighter, clearer) close up than in the body of the concert
> hall. =A0OK, so you can insist on ultra-minimal microphone setups to
> replicate the sound of that hall, as it would be heard by a mamber of
> the audience. =A0But then you're prioritizing the sound of the hall over
> the sound of the music!

No. Concert halls over the past few hundred years have been designed
with those instruments in mind and visa versa. Instruments have
developed with orchestras and the halls they play in in mind. The
sound of the music is the sound of the instruments and the hall. This
sound has already been given priority by the development of orchestral
music over a few centuries.

>=A0I think that much reverberation sounds
> excessive in the home, and you would hear the music more clearly with
> a bit less reverb than you'd get in a hall.

If you are hearing the reverb of your listening room then you are
hearing distortion. If you are hearing the reverb of the original hall
and still don't like it that is an opinion you get to have. I don't
share it. I have heard enough multimiked orchestral recordings to know
I hate them. That is an opinion I get to have.

>
> I know this may sound heretical, but maybe the sound at the position
> of the microphones above the orchestra is *better* than that of any
> seat in the hall. =A0Also, maybe it really is useful for a balance
> engineer to be able to turn up the solist in a concerto.

It's just a different aesthetic value. One that I simply do not share.

>
> In other words, I am denying that your ideal sound of an excellent
> hall from an excellent position in that hall is any sort of ideal at
> all.
>

You are free to not share my aesthetic values. As for your denial, I
deny it. I am quite certain about what I like and I am quite certain
that I am not alone in my aesthetic values. So it is a sort of ideal
that actually has a pretty broad base for those with the experience to
have a meaningful opinion on the subject.

Audio Empire

May 20th 10, 01:15 AM

On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:19:46 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On May 17, 2:49=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:07:58 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 16, 6:07=3DA0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:37:25 -0700, Scott wrote
>>
>>>>> =3DA0Bias controls do not make it any more difficult to make those
>>>>> determinations. It is other aspects of the design and execution of an=
> y
>>>>> comparison that will determine if they will tell you which speakers
>>>>> are "the most accurate" or what you like in a given price range.
>>>>> Nothing about blind protocols should ever prevent an otherwise
>>>>> effective test for determining those aspects of audio from doing so.
>>>>> All bias controls will do is control the biases they are designed to
>>>>> control from affecting the outcome. IF the bias controls are designed
>>>>> and implimented well.
>>
>>>> Bias controlled tests, ultimately compare one one set of speaker compr=
> omi=3D
>>> ses
>>>> to another set of compromises, and tell me very little about which is =
> the
>>>> more accurate.
>>
>>> How does removing the bias controls of any given test allow the test
>>> to tell you *more* about which speaker is more accurate? If a given
>>> test is telling you little about which is the more accurate speaker
>>> then the flaw in that test lies in the design of that test not in any
>>> particular bias controls that may be implimented in that test unless
>>> those specific bias controls are causing some sort of problem. That is
>>> not an intrinsic propperty of bias controls. If that is happening then
>>> the bias controls are being poorly designed or poorly implimented.
>>
>>> Any test one designs for measuring the relative accuracy of speakers
>>> against some sort of reference by ear can only be helped by well
>>> designed and well executed bias controls. If you disagree then please
>>> offer an argument to support *that.* There is no reason to talk about
>>> other bias controlled test designs that are simply not designed to
>>> measure percieved relative accuracy of loudspeakers.
>>
>> I think you misunderstand me. Comparing one speaker to another using bias
>> controlled tests like DBT and ABX tells me nothing in and of itself.
>
> As I said, lets not talk about tests that are poorly designed for the
> task at hand. ABX is merely a small subset of bias controlled testing.
> There is more in this world than an ABX test when it comes to bias
> controls. The vast majority of DBTs in this world actually are not
> ABX. You have to design a test that measures what you want to measure.
> In this case it is accuracy of speakers. *Then* you design bias
> controls to take bias out of the equation. This isn't about ABX.
>
>> HOWEVER,
>> if I am allowed to have this same setup over a long period of time (say
>> several hours to several days), using recordings of my own choosing, I wi=
> ll
>> be able to compare BOTH to my memory of what real, live music sounds like=
> and
>> be able to tell which of the two speakers is the more "realistic" (or, if=
> you
>> prefer, accurate to my memory of the sound of live music).
>
> OK now please tell me how if you were to do this with bias controls in
> place it would make the audition less informative?

It wouldn't. But most bias controlled tests aren't designed to allow those
circumstances. For instance, they are usually held in venues with which I am
neither familiar nor have the type of access to that I mentioned above.
Secondly, they rarely are set up that I can listen by myself using the music
I know. If my conditions could be met with a DBT, then, the answer to your
question would be that a bias controlled audition would NOT be less
informative.
>
>
>> =A0Of course, this
>> assumes that an accurate DBT test can be devised for speakers, which I
>> seriously doubt.
>
> Why? All we are talking about is controlling bias effects.

That's a tall order, especially with speakers. Not so difficult with
electronics though.

>
>>
>> For instance: How do you normalize such a test?
>
> How do you normalize such a test under sighted conditions? Do it that
> way and then impliment the bias controls.

You don't. You just listen (and take notes). Since I'm not comparing one
speaker directly to another, there's no need to match levels to within 1 dB
or less, there's no problem with making sure that each speaker system is
optimally located, etc.

>> Suppose one speaker is 89
>> dB/Watt and the other is 93 dB/Watt? You'd have to use a really accurate =
> SPL
>> meter. Few have that. I have a Radio Shack SPL meter like most of us, but
>> it's probably not accurate enough to set speaker levels within less than =
> 1 dB
>> for such a test.
>
>
> Seems like an issue that is completely independent of bias controls.

Not at all. Human perception will always bias toward the louder of two
sources, that makes level matching de riguer for eliminating bias.
>
>
>> =A0Secondly, speakers (and rooms) are NOT amplifiers or CD
>> decks with ruler-flat frequency response. How do you make them the same
>> level? You certainly don't want to put T-Pads between the amp and speaker=
> s to
>> equalize them as that would screw-up the impedance matching between amp a=
> nd
>> speaker.
>
>
> A fair question. But,again, how is this an issue with bias controls?
> How do bias controls affect this problem?

Those are "bias control" items.

>> =A0All that I can come up with is that you not only need two sets of
>> speakers for such a test, you'll also need two IDENTICAL stereo amplifier=
> s
>> with some way to trim them on their inputs to give equal SPL for both the=
> 89
>> dB/Watt speaker and the 93 dB/Watt speaker - and at what frequency? Each
>> speaker can vary wildly from one frequency to another and these frequency
>> response anomalies are exacerbated by the room in which the test is being
>> conducted, as well as by the placement of each set of speakers in that ro=
> om
>> and It would be difficult to have both test samples occupy the same space=
> at
>> the same time. Thirdly, you can set them to both to produce a single
>> frequency, say 1KHz, at exactly (less than 1 dB difference) the same =A0l=
> evel
>> but what happens when you switch frequencies to, say, 400 Hz or 5 KHz? On=
> e
>> speaker could exhibit as much as 6 dB difference in volume (or more) from=
> the
>> other depending upon whether speaker "A", for instance, has a 3 dB peak a=
> t
>> 400 Hz (with respect to 1KHz) and speaker "B" has a three dB trough at 40=
> 0 Hz
>> (again referenced to 1 KHz).
>
>
> All legitimate concerns none of which have anything to do with bias
> controls. You face these issues whether you listen with biases in play
> or controlled.

I don't get your point. These ARE all bias control issues. They are NOT
sighted bias issues or even expectational bias issues, but they are audible
bias issues. The human brain will always pick out the loudest source as the
best. It may be that the louder speaker is NOT the better of the two, but in
an ABX or DBT, the louder speaker will always predominate. Seems to me that
in order for such a test to be relevant, that both speakers must be level
matched just as an amplifier or a CD player must be level matched and for the
same reason.

>> It seems to me that such a test would be incredibly difficult =A0to pull =
> off,
>> in any environment but an anechoic chamber (to eliminate room interaction=
>>
>> and even then would only really work for two speakers who's frequency
>> response curves were very similar. Even so, people's biases are going to
>> still come into play. If one likes big bass, the speaker which has the be=
> st
>> bass is going to be his pick, every time. If a listener likes pin-point
>> imaging, he's going to pick the speaker that images the better of the two=
> -
>> every time.
>>
>> These are just a few of my real-world =A0doubts as to the efficacy of DBT
>> testing for speakers and why I believe that they are not only impractical
>> (because they would be darned difficult to set up), but would not yield a=
> ny
>> kind of a consensus as to which speaker was the most accurate.
>
>
> None of the concerns you have expressed are affected by the
> implimentation of well designed bias controls. You certainly have
> touched upon some of the many issues facing any consumer in comparing
> speakers but those issues are issues when comparing under sighted
> conditions.
>

I don't agree at all. Level matching across the audible spectrum is just as
necessary in a speaker DBT as it would be when comparing electronic
components. If you can't do that, then a speaker DBT where the levels aren't
precisely matched would be just as worthless as an amplifier DBT where the
levels weren't precisely matched.

Harry Lavo

May 20th 10, 01:16 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:26:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> My question is what was used to insure that the two
>>> speakers were exactly the same loudness across the entire
>>> audio spectrum?
>>
>> Didn't happen. The speakers had slightly different frequency responses at
>> various listening locations.
>
> That disqualifies the results in my estimation.
>>
>>> Also, how much did the fact that the
>>> Behringers are self-powered and the "not named" $12000
>>> audiophile speakers required a separate (and entirely
>>> different) amp to power them affect the results?
>>
>> We didn't know or care how the speakers we were listening to were made.
>> It
>> was all about sound quality.
>>
>
> My point is that you were listening to TWO variables, The two amps and the
> two speakers. That pretty much disqualifies the results as well.
>
> If your point in citing this DBT was to make points for that testing
> methodology of analyzing speakers, I think you picked a poor example.
>
> You can see that the methodology is seriously flawed, in this test (as you
> have explained it), do you not?

It raises another point as well. And that is that even a seemingly simple
dbt is extremely taxing to do well in a home setting....making such tests
totally impractical in most home situations. The problem with that is
simple....so long as anybody who offers an opinion about the "sound" of a
piece of gear is immediately accused of deluding themselves for not having
done a dbt, it pretty well destroys much of the rationale for having an
audio newsgroup in the first place.

Audio Empire

May 20th 10, 02:37 PM

On Wed, 19 May 2010 17:16:07 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:26:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> My question is what was used to insure that the two
>>>> speakers were exactly the same loudness across the entire
>>>> audio spectrum?
>>>
>>> Didn't happen. The speakers had slightly different frequency responses at
>>> various listening locations.
>>
>> That disqualifies the results in my estimation.
>>>
>>>> Also, how much did the fact that the
>>>> Behringers are self-powered and the "not named" $12000
>>>> audiophile speakers required a separate (and entirely
>>>> different) amp to power them affect the results?
>>>
>>> We didn't know or care how the speakers we were listening to were made.
>>> It
>>> was all about sound quality.
>>>
>>
>> My point is that you were listening to TWO variables, The two amps and the
>> two speakers. That pretty much disqualifies the results as well.
>>
>> If your point in citing this DBT was to make points for that testing
>> methodology of analyzing speakers, I think you picked a poor example.
>>
>> You can see that the methodology is seriously flawed, in this test (as you
>> have explained it), do you not?
>
> It raises another point as well. And that is that even a seemingly simple
> dbt is extremely taxing to do well in a home setting....making such tests
> totally impractical in most home situations.

This is certainly part of my contention. DBT and ABX tests are
methodologically daunting even for electronics where, ostensibly, the
electronics have ruler-flat frequency response and the same speakers are used
for each unit being compared. That makes level matching a fairly
straightforward (if not altogether easy) endeavor. With speakers, everything
is more difficult. From matching levels of two speaker systems in the same
room when frequency response differences between the two sets of speakers can
be all over the place, to making sure that the speakers in question are
optimally located in space, to making sure that the listeners cannot tell
with either their eyes or their ears which of the two systems is playing at
any given time, to measuring the SPL at the listening positions to make sure
that even at ONE frequency (much less over the entire spectrum), the two sets
of speakers are level matched.

The problem with that is
> simple....so long as anybody who offers an opinion about the "sound" of a
> piece of gear is immediately accused of deluding themselves for not having
> done a dbt, it pretty well destroys much of the rationale for having an
> audio newsgroup in the first place.

What many need to understand (in my opinion) about evaluating audio equipment
is WHEN it is useful to use objective test methodologies (DBT, measurements,
etc) and WHEN it is more useful to use subjective evaluation methods. I know
that many here would find that idea heresy, but I think that it can be seen
from the exchange here over the last few days, that this is the most useful
approach.

Arny Krueger

May 20th 10, 02:38 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:26:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> My question is what was used to insure that the two
>>> speakers were exactly the same loudness across the
>>> entire audio spectrum?

>> Didn't happen. The speakers had slightly different
>> frequency responses at various listening locations.

> That disqualifies the results in my estimation.

If you set the bar this high, then all possible results are disqualified.

My comment is also in error. The speakers were matched using a "Perceptual
Transfer Function" measurement device. I posted a number of other references
that describe this device in more detail, in another post. Here is one of
them so that this post can stand on its own:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9942

>>> Also, how much did the fact that the
>>> Behringers are self-powered and the "not named" $12000
>>> audiophile speakers required a separate (and entirely
>>> different) amp to power them affect the results?
>>
>> We didn't know or care how the speakers we were
>> listening to were made. It was all about sound quality.

> My point is that you were listening to TWO variables, The
> two amps and the two speakers. That pretty much
> disqualifies the results as well.

Not at all. Amps that were used were exactly as recommended and supplied by
the suppliers of the two loudspeakers. Again, the proposed standard makes it
impossible to do relevant tests.

Arny Krueger

May 20th 10, 02:46 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> It raises another point as well. And that is that even a
> seemingly simple dbt is extremely taxing to do well in a
> home setting.

I think we can take this comment as showing that there are vast differences
in the technical resources that various people bring to bear on problems
that seem to vex many audiophiles. We're just trying to help and shed light.

Obviously some of us have resources that other's don't have. Disqualifying
listening tests because casual audiophiles can't do them for themselves
seems to make no sense.

>...making such tests totally impractical in
> most home situations.

Nobody is saying that every casual audiophile can do what some of us can do
as a matter of course.

If tests are disqualified because they require resources that every casual
audiophile may not be able to have access to automatically disqualifies
virtually every evaluation that is done by any of the various audio
magazines.

If Harry wants to disqualify each and every issue and every review ever done
by TAS and Stereophile on the grounds that their listening evaluations are
too sophisticated for the average audiophile to duplicate, then he can be my
guest! ;-)

Arny Krueger

May 20th 10, 04:25 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> This is certainly part of my contention. DBT and ABX
> tests are methodologically daunting even for electronics
> where, ostensibly, the electronics have ruler-flat
> frequency response and the same speakers are used for
> each unit being compared.

Methodologically daunting?

Does this mean that you are unable to properly level-match electronic
components?

> That makes level matching a
> fairly straightforward (if not altogether easy) endeavor.

??????????

Didn't you just say it is "methodologically daunting"?

> With speakers, everything is more difficult. From
> matching levels of two speaker systems in the same room
> when frequency response differences between the two sets
> of speakers can be all over the place, to making sure
> that the speakers in question are optimally located in
> space, to making sure that the listeners cannot tell with
> either their eyes or their ears which of the two systems
> is playing at any given time, to measuring the SPL at the
> listening positions to make sure that even at ONE
> frequency (much less over the entire spectrum), the two
> sets of speakers are level matched.

I think two different kinds of experiements are being confused.

In our speaker evaluations the question we were evaluating was not: "Do they
sound exactly the same". That they did not sound exactly the same was a
given.

As I've been pointing out all along, and which I repeated today, we were
evaluating speakers in accordance with the following set of questions:

1. Speakers Disappear

2. Local Acoustics Not Heard

3. Images Lateral Localization

4. Images Depth Localization

5. Ambience non-Localized

The following relates to the degree to which the liveness of music can be
enjoyed by more than one listener in the room:

6. Freedom of Movement

> The problem with that is
>> simple....so long as anybody who offers an opinion about
>> the "sound" of a piece of gear is immediately accused of
>> deluding themselves for not having done a dbt, it pretty
>> well destroys much of the rationale for having an audio
>> newsgroup in the first place.

This is a straw man. There is no such general rule that has ever been
applied.

> What many need to understand (in my opinion) about
> evaluating audio equipment is WHEN it is useful to use
> objective test methodologies (DBT, measurements, etc)
> and WHEN it is more useful to use subjective evaluation
> methods.

To which I say "Doctor cure thyself".

I also see a false dichotomy, one that says that DBTs are *not* subjective.

A confusion I sense is the false idea that an evaluation methodology that
controls bias is not subjective. To get there, one has to invent some new
definition of subjective. Listening tests have long been thought to be
subjective, bias controlled or not.

bob

May 20th 10, 04:26 PM

On May 20, 9:37=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:

> What many need to understand (in my opinion) about evaluating audio equip=
ment
> is WHEN it is useful to use objective test methodologies =A0(DBT, measure=
ments,
> etc) and WHEN it is more useful to use subjective evaluation methods. I k=
now
> that many here would find that idea heresy, but I think that it can be se=
en
> from the exchange here over the last few days, that this is the most usef=
ul
> approach.

You seem to be under the misimpression that level-matching ONLY
matters in objective comparisons. If you are (foolishly) relying on
your long-term memory of one speaker in comparing it to another, it
still matters whether you were listening at the same level or not. If
you are comparing two speakers side-by-side but not blind, it still
matters whether they are playing at the same level or not.

Playing speakers at different levels alters their sound. Period. If
you want to compare speakers based on sound quality, you need to level-
match, however you compare them. Otherwise, you're comparing them
based on how you happened to set the volume control.

bob

Harry Lavo

May 20th 10, 06:11 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 17:16:07 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:26:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My question is what was used to insure that the two
>>>>> speakers were exactly the same loudness across the entire
>>>>> audio spectrum?
>>>>
>>>> Didn't happen. The speakers had slightly different frequency responses
>>>> at
>>>> various listening locations.
>>>
>>> That disqualifies the results in my estimation.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, how much did the fact that the
>>>>> Behringers are self-powered and the "not named" $12000
>>>>> audiophile speakers required a separate (and entirely
>>>>> different) amp to power them affect the results?
>>>>
>>>> We didn't know or care how the speakers we were listening to were made.
>>>> It
>>>> was all about sound quality.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My point is that you were listening to TWO variables, The two amps and
>>> the
>>> two speakers. That pretty much disqualifies the results as well.
>>>
>>> If your point in citing this DBT was to make points for that testing
>>> methodology of analyzing speakers, I think you picked a poor example.
>>>
>>> You can see that the methodology is seriously flawed, in this test (as
>>> you
>>> have explained it), do you not?
>>
>> It raises another point as well. And that is that even a seemingly
>> simple
>> dbt is extremely taxing to do well in a home setting....making such tests
>> totally impractical in most home situations.
>
> This is certainly part of my contention. DBT and ABX tests are
> methodologically daunting even for electronics where, ostensibly, the
> electronics have ruler-flat frequency response and the same speakers are
> used
> for each unit being compared. That makes level matching a fairly
> straightforward (if not altogether easy) endeavor. With speakers,
> everything
> is more difficult. From matching levels of two speaker systems in the same
> room when frequency response differences between the two sets of speakers
> can
> be all over the place, to making sure that the speakers in question are
> optimally located in space, to making sure that the listeners cannot tell
> with either their eyes or their ears which of the two systems is playing
> at
> any given time, to measuring the SPL at the listening positions to make
> sure
> that even at ONE frequency (much less over the entire spectrum), the two
> sets
> of speakers are level matched.
>
> The problem with that is
>> simple....so long as anybody who offers an opinion about the "sound" of a
>> piece of gear is immediately accused of deluding themselves for not
>> having
>> done a dbt, it pretty well destroys much of the rationale for having an
>> audio newsgroup in the first place.
>
> What many need to understand (in my opinion) about evaluating audio
> equipment
> is WHEN it is useful to use objective test methodologies (DBT,
> measurements,
> etc) and WHEN it is more useful to use subjective evaluation methods. I
> know
> that many here would find that idea heresy, but I think that it can be
> seen
> from the exchange here over the last few days, that this is the most
> useful
> approach.

I agree, but I would simplify things.....blind testing is required when
doing serious research. It is not required when assembling a home audio
system. Nor is it reasonable to insist that it be done before commenting on
impressions of sound.

Harry Lavo

May 20th 10, 07:31 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> It raises another point as well. And that is that even a
>> seemingly simple dbt is extremely taxing to do well in a
>> home setting.
>
> I think we can take this comment as showing that there are vast
> differences
> in the technical resources that various people bring to bear on problems
> that seem to vex many audiophiles. We're just trying to help and shed
> light.
>
> Obviously some of us have resources that other's don't have. Disqualifying
> listening tests because casual audiophiles can't do them for themselves
> seems to make no sense.
>
>>...making such tests totally impractical in
>> most home situations.
>
> Nobody is saying that every casual audiophile can do what some of us can
> do
> as a matter of course.

Then your friends need to learn to hold their tongues whenever one of those
casual audiophiles makes comment reflecting his opinion about the "sound" of
a piece of gear, or his enjoyment of a piece of gear above minimum price
point. It is one thing to point out common understanding; it is another to
do it in a way that accuses the casual audiophile of being a fool who is
deluding himself, which often seems to be the tone in many audio newsgroups.

>
> If tests are disqualified because they require resources that every casual
> audiophile may not be able to have access to automatically disqualifies
> virtually every evaluation that is done by any of the various audio
> magazines.
>
> If Harry wants to disqualify each and every issue and every review ever
> done
> by TAS and Stereophile on the grounds that their listening evaluations are
> too sophisticated for the average audiophile to duplicate, then he can be
> my
> guest! ;-)

Stereophiles reviews are not "tests", they are subjective evaluations of the
sound and functionality of the gear under review. Written both as a guide
(for those who trust this particular reviewer) and as a form of
entertainment. John Atkinson's bench work are electronic
measurements.....tests of a sort, but they don't purport to tell you how
things "sound".

Arny Krueger

May 20th 10, 07:31 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> ....blind testing is
> required when doing serious research. It is not required
> when assembling a home audio system.

While blind testing is not required in every case, it doesn't seem to be an
unreasonable tool to use, were one basing his component choices on serious
research.

I find it easy to agree with the idea that people who disregard blind
testing and lack the interest required to use it as a tool, even when it is
easy to do, are not all that serious.

> Nor is it
> reasonable to insist that it be done before commenting on
> impressions of sound.

It is impossible, in a country with free speech, to require that people do
anything even think superficiallly, before they comment in public. ;-)

Scott[_6_]

May 20th 10, 08:07 PM

On May 19, 5:15=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:19:46 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 2:49=3DA0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:07:58 -0700, Scott wrote
> >> (in article >):
>
> >>> On May 16, 6:07=3D3DA0pm, Audio Empire > wro=
te:
> >>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:37:25 -0700, Scott wrote
>
> >>>>> =3D3DA0Bias controls do not make it any more difficult to make thos=
e
> >>>>> determinations. It is other aspects of the design and execution of =
an=3D
> > y
> >>>>> comparison that will determine if they will tell you which speakers
> >>>>> are "the most accurate" or what you like in a given price range.
> >>>>> Nothing about blind protocols should ever prevent an otherwise
> >>>>> effective test for determining those aspects of audio from doing so=
..
> >>>>> All bias controls will do is control the biases they are designed t=
o
> >>>>> control from affecting the outcome. IF the bias controls are design=
ed
> >>>>> and implimented well.
>
> >>>> Bias controlled tests, ultimately compare one one set of speaker com=
pr=3D
> > omi=3D3D
> >>> ses
> >>>> to another set of compromises, and tell me very little about which i=
s =3D
> > the
> >>>> more accurate.
>
> >>> How does removing the bias controls of any given test allow the test
> >>> to tell you *more* about which speaker is more accurate? If a given
> >>> test is telling you little about which is the more accurate speaker
> >>> then the flaw in that test lies in the design of that test not in any
> >>> particular bias controls that may be implimented in that test unless
> >>> those specific bias controls are causing some sort of problem. That i=
s
> >>> not an intrinsic propperty of bias controls. If that is happening the=
n
> >>> the bias controls are being poorly designed or poorly implimented.
>
> >>> Any test one designs for measuring the relative accuracy of speakers
> >>> against some sort of reference by ear can only be helped by well
> >>> designed and well executed bias controls. If you disagree then please
> >>> offer an argument to support *that.* There is no reason to talk about
> >>> other bias controlled test designs that are simply not designed to
> >>> measure percieved relative accuracy of loudspeakers.
>
> >> I think you misunderstand me. Comparing one speaker to another using b=
ias
> >> controlled tests like DBT and ABX tells me nothing in and of itself.
>
> > As I said, lets not talk about tests that are poorly designed for the
> > task at hand. ABX is merely a small subset of bias controlled testing.
> > There is more in this world than an ABX test when it comes to bias
> > controls. The vast majority of DBTs in this world actually are not
> > ABX. You have to design a test that measures what you want to measure.
> > In this case it is accuracy of speakers. *Then* you design bias
> > controls to take bias out of the equation. This isn't about ABX.
>
> >> HOWEVER,
> >> if I am allowed to have this same setup over a long period of time (sa=
y
> >> several hours to several days), using recordings of my own choosing, I=
wi=3D
> > ll
> >> be able to compare BOTH to my memory of what real, live music sounds l=
ike=3D
> > =A0and
> >> be able to tell which of the two speakers is the more "realistic" (or,=
if=3D
> > =A0you
> >> prefer, accurate to my memory of the sound of live music).
>
> > OK now please tell me how if you were to do this with bias controls in
> > place it would make the audition less informative?
>
> It wouldn't.

My point exactly. Thank you.

> But most bias controlled tests aren't designed to allow those
> circumstances.

This is why I didn't want to talk about them. Tests that aren't
designed for the purpose we are speaking about are irrelevant.

>
>
>
> >> =3DA0Of course, this
> >> assumes that an accurate DBT test can be devised for speakers, which I
> >> seriously doubt.
>
> > Why? All we are talking about is controlling bias effects.
>
> That's a tall order, especially with speakers. Not so difficult with
> electronics though. =A0

"Tall order" is not IMO a very good argument. I agree that it is a
tall order. But I don't agree that such a tall order is impossible.

>
>
>
> >> For instance: How do you normalize such a test?
>
> > How do you normalize such a test under sighted conditions? Do it that
> > way and then impliment the bias controls.
>
> You don't.

Then it is a problem with or without bias controls.

> You just listen (and take notes). Since I'm not comparing one
> speaker directly to another, there's no need to match levels to within 1 =
dB
> or less, there's no problem with making sure that each speaker system is
> optimally located, etc.

Really? These things are not a problem?

>
> >> Suppose one speaker is 89
> >> dB/Watt and the other is 93 dB/Watt? You'd have to use a really accura=
te =3D
> > SPL
> >> meter. Few have that. I have a Radio Shack SPL meter like most of us, =
but
> >> it's probably not accurate enough to set speaker levels within less th=
an =3D
> > 1 dB
> >> for such a test.
>
> > Seems like an issue that is completely independent of bias controls.
>
> Not at all. Human perception will always bias toward the louder of two
> sources, that makes level matching de riguer for eliminating bias.

How is this not true under sighted conditions?

>
>
>
> >> =3DA0Secondly, speakers (and rooms) are NOT amplifiers or CD
> >> decks with ruler-flat frequency response. How do you make them the sam=
e
> >> level? You certainly don't want to put T-Pads between the amp and spea=
ker=3D
> > s to
> >> equalize them as that would screw-up the impedance matching between am=
p a=3D
> > nd
> >> speaker.
>
> > A fair question. But,again, how is this an issue with bias controls?
> > How do bias controls affect this problem?
>
> Those are "bias control" items.

Nope. Level matching is the same issue in accuracy comparison tests
with or without bias controls in play.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> =3DA0All that I can come up with is that you not only need two sets of
> >> speakers for such a test, you'll also need two IDENTICAL stereo amplif=
ier=3D
> > s
> >> with some way to trim them on their inputs to give equal SPL for both =
the=3D
> > =A089
> >> dB/Watt speaker and the 93 dB/Watt speaker - and at what frequency? Ea=
ch
> >> speaker can vary wildly from one frequency to another and these freque=
ncy
> >> response anomalies are exacerbated by the room in which the test is be=
ing
> >> conducted, as well as by the placement of each set of speakers in that=
ro=3D
> > om
> >> and It would be difficult to have both test samples occupy the same sp=
ace=3D
> > =A0at
> >> the same time. Thirdly, you can set them to both to produce a single
> >> frequency, say 1KHz, at exactly (less than 1 dB difference) the same =
=3DA0l=3D
> > evel
> >> but what happens when you switch frequencies to, say, 400 Hz or 5 KHz?=
On=3D
> > e
> >> speaker could exhibit as much as 6 dB difference in volume (or more) f=
rom=3D
> > =A0the
> >> other depending upon whether speaker "A", for instance, has a 3 dB pea=
k a=3D
> > t
> >> 400 Hz (with respect to 1KHz) and speaker "B" has a three dB trough at=
40=3D
> > 0 Hz
> >> (again referenced to 1 KHz).
>
> > All legitimate concerns none of which have anything to do with bias
> > controls. You face these issues whether you listen with biases in play
> > or controlled.
>
> I don't get your point. These ARE all bias control issues.

No they are not. Bias control issues are about controling biases that
are in the head not in the actual sound.

> They are NOT
> sighted bias issues or even expectational bias issues, but they are audib=
le
> bias issues.

But they do not disappear under sighted conditions so they are not a
valid reason to claim bias controls make for an inferior test.

> The human brain will always pick out the loudest source as the
> best.

Well. no it won't but that is another subject. The problem exists with
or without bias controls in place so it isn't a legitimate argument
against the use of bias controls. It is a legitimate argument for
adressing levels as a factor in preferences. But that issue exists
under sighted or blind conditions.

> It may be that the louder speaker is NOT the better of the two, but in
> an ABX or DBT, the louder speaker will always predominate.

So it won't under sighted conditions? Are you claiming that seeing the
speakers will eliminate this effect?

> Seems to me that
> in order for such a test to be relevant, that both speakers must be level
> matched just as an amplifier or a CD player must be level matched and for=
the
> same reason.

Seems to me this is an issue under sighted conditions as well as
blind.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> It seems to me that such a test would be incredibly difficult =3DA0to =
pull =3D
> > off,
> >> in any environment but an anechoic chamber (to eliminate room interact=
ion=3D
>
> >> and even then would only really work for two speakers who's frequency
> >> response curves were very similar. Even so, people's biases are going =
to
> >> still come into play. If one likes big bass, the speaker which has the=
be=3D
> > st
> >> bass is going to be his pick, every time. If a listener likes pin-poin=
t
> >> imaging, he's going to pick the speaker that images the better of the =
two=3D
> > =A0-
> >> every time.
>
> >> These are just a few of my real-world =3DA0doubts as to the efficacy o=
f DBT
> >> testing for speakers and why I believe that they are not only impracti=
cal
> >> (because they would be darned difficult to set up), but would not yiel=
d a=3D
> > ny
> >> kind of a consensus as to which speaker was the most accurate.
>
> > None of the concerns you have expressed are affected by the
> > implimentation of well designed bias controls. You certainly have
> > touched upon some of the many issues facing any consumer in comparing
> > speakers but those issues are issues when comparing under sighted
> > conditions.
>
> I don't agree at all. Level matching across the audible spectrum is just =
as
> necessary in a speaker DBT as it would be when comparing electronic
> components.

No it is not. It's not necessary when comparing electronic components
either. The idea of comparing things is to evaluate how they sound not
to eliminate how they sound.

> If you can't do that, then a speaker DBT where the levels aren't
> precisely matched would be just as worthless as an amplifier DBT where th=
e
> levels weren't precisely matched

No it wouldn't. Speakers have their own sound. *That* is what you are
comparing in a bias controlled test for accuracy against a reference.
You don't have to mess around with them. Just set them up propperly
and compare them. Sighted or blind.

Arny Krueger

May 21st 10, 01:47 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> It raises another point as well. And that is that even
>>> a seemingly simple dbt is extremely taxing to do well
>>> in a home setting.
>>
>> I think we can take this comment as showing that there
>> are vast differences
>> in the technical resources that various people bring to
>> bear on problems that seem to vex many audiophiles.
>> We're just trying to help and shed light.
>>
>> Obviously some of us have resources that other's don't
>> have. Disqualifying listening tests because casual
>> audiophiles can't do them for themselves seems to make
>> no sense.
>>
>>> ...making such tests totally impractical in
>>> most home situations.
>>
>> Nobody is saying that every casual audiophile can do
>> what some of us can do
>> as a matter of course.

> Then your friends need to learn to hold their tongues
> whenever one of those casual audiophiles makes comment
> reflecting his opinion about the "sound" of a piece of
> gear, or his enjoyment of a piece of gear above minimum
> price point.

Harry, what's unclear to you about the concept of freedom of speech and
respect for differences of opinons?

On occasion some of us disagree with something that is said, and we voice
that disagreement.

You have a problem with me expressing my opinon?

> It is one thing to point out common
> understanding; it is another to do it in a way that
> accuses the casual audiophile of being a fool who is
> deluding himself, which often seems to be the tone in
> many audio newsgroups.

Here's your next challenge Harry - show me calling anybody a fool or
delusional.

If you can't then you would of course owe me a public apology.

>> If tests are disqualified because they require resources
>> that every casual audiophile may not be able to have
>> access to automatically disqualifies virtually every
>> evaluation that is done by any of the various audio
>> magazines.

>> If Harry wants to disqualify each and every issue and
>> every review ever done
>> by TAS and Stereophile on the grounds that their
>> listening evaluations are too sophisticated for the
>> average audiophile to duplicate, then he can be my
>> guest! ;-)

> Stereophiles reviews are not "tests",

Harry, you really need to learn how to read. I did not say anything in the
paragraph about Stereophile's reviews being tests.

Harry, if you want to make up statements and then argue with them, please be
my guest but don't expect me to take such posts very seriously! ;-)

> they are subjective
> evaluations of the sound and functionality of the gear
> under review.

That would be a parphrase of what I just said. I used the exact word
evaluation and I did not use the word test.

??????????????

Audio Empire

May 21st 10, 03:12 AM

On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:26:05 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On May 20, 9:37=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> What many need to understand (in my opinion) about evaluating audio equip=
> ment
>> is WHEN it is useful to use objective test methodologies =A0(DBT, measure=
> ments,
>> etc) and WHEN it is more useful to use subjective evaluation methods. I k=
> now
>> that many here would find that idea heresy, but I think that it can be se=
> en
>> from the exchange here over the last few days, that this is the most usef=
> ul
>> approach.
>
> You seem to be under the misimpression that level-matching ONLY
> matters in objective comparisons. If you are (foolishly) relying on
> your long-term memory of one speaker in comparing it to another, it
> still matters whether you were listening at the same level or not. If
> you are comparing two speakers side-by-side but not blind, it still
> matters whether they are playing at the same level or not.
>
> Playing speakers at different levels alters their sound. Period. If
> you want to compare speakers based on sound quality, you need to level-
> match, however you compare them. Otherwise, you're comparing them
> based on how you happened to set the volume control.
>
> bob
>

Congratulations, that's my point. The fact that one cannot level match two
speakers due to the magnitude of the frequency response differences between
them, disqualifies them from being the subject of a properly conducted DBT.
The louder one will always be chosen as being "better" - even if it is not.

Audio Empire

May 21st 10, 03:13 AM

On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:07:35 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

>>> OK now please tell me how if you were to do this with bias controls in
>>> place it would make the audition less informative?
>>
>> It wouldn't.
>
> My point exactly. Thank you.
>
>> But most bias controlled tests aren't designed to allow those
>> circumstances.
>
> This is why I didn't want to talk about them. Tests that aren't
> designed for the purpose we are speaking about are irrelevant.

Tell that to the likes of those who insist that DBTs work with speakers. They
are the ones with whom I'm debating, not you. You "get it."

Audio Empire

May 21st 10, 03:45 AM

On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:25:56 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> This is certainly part of my contention. DBT and ABX
>> tests are methodologically daunting even for electronics
>> where, ostensibly, the electronics have ruler-flat
>> frequency response and the same speakers are used for
>> each unit being compared.
>
> Methodologically daunting?
>
> Does this mean that you are unable to properly level-match electronic
> components?

No it means that one has to have a comparator and someone to operate it in a
manner that this operator doesn't know which DUT he/she is selecting. I means
that levels must be matched to withing a fraction of a DB (the closer the
better). It means that one has to (ideally) assemble a listening panel amnd
line up the components under test.
>
>> That makes level matching a
>> fairly straightforward (if not altogether easy) endeavor.
>
> ??????????
>
> Didn't you just say it is "methodologically daunting"?
>
>> With speakers, everything is more difficult. From
>> matching levels of two speaker systems in the same room
>> when frequency response differences between the two sets
>> of speakers can be all over the place, to making sure
>> that the speakers in question are optimally located in
>> space, to making sure that the listeners cannot tell with
>> either their eyes or their ears which of the two systems
>> is playing at any given time, to measuring the SPL at the
>> listening positions to make sure that even at ONE
>> frequency (much less over the entire spectrum), the two
>> sets of speakers are level matched.
>
> I think two different kinds of experiements are being confused.
>
> In our speaker evaluations the question we were evaluating was not: "Do they
> sound exactly the same". That they did not sound exactly the same was a
> given.

Of course, they won't sound alike, that's the entire reason for the test in
the first place, isn't it? To determine what those differences are and
perhaps come to some sort of conclusion about which is best? But they MUST be
level matched (just like amps, preamps, or other electronic components) or
you won't know whether the differences you hear are level differences or
quality differences. What's good for the goose....

> As I've been pointing out all along, and which I repeated today, we were
> evaluating speakers in accordance with the following set of questions:
>
>
> 1. Speakers Disappear
>
> 2. Local Acoustics Not Heard
>
> 3. Images Lateral Localization
>
> 4. Images Depth Localization
>
> 5. Ambience non-Localized
>
> The following relates to the degree to which the liveness of music can be
> enjoyed by more than one listener in the room:
>
> 6. Freedom of Movement

And this frees speakers from the same rules of engagement as DBTs for other
types of components, how?

Audio Empire

May 21st 10, 03:45 AM

On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:31:22 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> ....blind testing is
>> required when doing serious research. It is not required
>> when assembling a home audio system.
>
> While blind testing is not required in every case, it doesn't seem to be an
> unreasonable tool to use, were one basing his component choices on serious
> research.

Yes, where applicable. Speakers are not "where applicable", in my estimation.

Audio Empire

May 21st 10, 03:45 AM

On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:11:49 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 17:16:07 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:26:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> My question is what was used to insure that the two
>>>>>> speakers were exactly the same loudness across the entire
>>>>>> audio spectrum?
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't happen. The speakers had slightly different frequency responses
>>>>> at
>>>>> various listening locations.
>>>>
>>>> That disqualifies the results in my estimation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, how much did the fact that the
>>>>>> Behringers are self-powered and the "not named" $12000
>>>>>> audiophile speakers required a separate (and entirely
>>>>>> different) amp to power them affect the results?
>>>>>
>>>>> We didn't know or care how the speakers we were listening to were made.
>>>>> It
>>>>> was all about sound quality.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My point is that you were listening to TWO variables, The two amps and
>>>> the
>>>> two speakers. That pretty much disqualifies the results as well.
>>>>
>>>> If your point in citing this DBT was to make points for that testing
>>>> methodology of analyzing speakers, I think you picked a poor example.
>>>>
>>>> You can see that the methodology is seriously flawed, in this test (as
>>>> you
>>>> have explained it), do you not?
>>>
>>> It raises another point as well. And that is that even a seemingly
>>> simple
>>> dbt is extremely taxing to do well in a home setting....making such tests
>>> totally impractical in most home situations.
>>
>> This is certainly part of my contention. DBT and ABX tests are
>> methodologically daunting even for electronics where, ostensibly, the
>> electronics have ruler-flat frequency response and the same speakers are
>> used
>> for each unit being compared. That makes level matching a fairly
>> straightforward (if not altogether easy) endeavor. With speakers,
>> everything
>> is more difficult. From matching levels of two speaker systems in the same
>> room when frequency response differences between the two sets of speakers
>> can
>> be all over the place, to making sure that the speakers in question are
>> optimally located in space, to making sure that the listeners cannot tell
>> with either their eyes or their ears which of the two systems is playing
>> at
>> any given time, to measuring the SPL at the listening positions to make
>> sure
>> that even at ONE frequency (much less over the entire spectrum), the two
>> sets
>> of speakers are level matched.
>>
>> The problem with that is
>>> simple....so long as anybody who offers an opinion about the "sound" of a
>>> piece of gear is immediately accused of deluding themselves for not
>>> having
>>> done a dbt, it pretty well destroys much of the rationale for having an
>>> audio newsgroup in the first place.
>>
>> What many need to understand (in my opinion) about evaluating audio
>> equipment
>> is WHEN it is useful to use objective test methodologies (DBT,
>> measurements,
>> etc) and WHEN it is more useful to use subjective evaluation methods. I
>> know
>> that many here would find that idea heresy, but I think that it can be
>> seen
>> from the exchange here over the last few days, that this is the most
>> useful
>> approach.
>
> I agree, but I would simplify things.....blind testing is required when
> doing serious research. It is not required when assembling a home audio
> system. Nor is it reasonable to insist that it be done before commenting on
> impressions of sound.
>
>

I'll buy that. But I will say that blind testing is nonetheless useful for
exposing "snake oil" such as myrtle wood blocks, speaker cable elevators (as
well as speaker cable), green pens, $500 AC line cords, $4000/pair
interconnects etc, for what they are, audibly worthless bling. These tests
are also useful for showing that a $5000 amplifier isn't necessarily better
sounding than a $500 amp of similar power rating.

bob

May 21st 10, 03:45 AM

On May 20, 10:12=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> Congratulations, that's my point. The fact that one cannot level match tw=
o
> speakers due to the magnitude of the frequency response differences betwe=
en
> them, disqualifies them from being the subject of a properly conducted DB=
T. =A0
> The louder one will always be chosen as being "better" - even if it is no=
t. =A0

I'll thank you not to twist my words. I said no such thing. In fact,
it is quite possible to level-match between two speakers. Sean Olive
does it all the time. His research would be pointless if he did not.

My point was that level-matching is essential for ANY comparison,
objective or subjective. Equal loudness differences do not disappear,
just because you are a subjectivist.

bob

Arny Krueger

May 21st 10, 02:45 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:07:35 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>>>> OK now please tell me how if you were to do this with
>>>> bias controls in place it would make the audition less
>>>> informative?
>>>
>>> It wouldn't.
>>
>> My point exactly. Thank you.
>>
>>> But most bias controlled tests aren't designed to allow
>>> those circumstances.
>>
>> This is why I didn't want to talk about them. Tests that
>> aren't designed for the purpose we are speaking about
>> are irrelevant.
>
> Tell that to the likes of those who insist that DBTs work
> with speakers. They are the ones with whom I'm debating,
> not you. You "get it."

The fact that DBTs can work with speakers is rather obvious from the many
writings of Floyd Toole and Sean Olive. I presume that you are completely
unaware of this well-known, highly important, and widely highly regarded
work?

Here is a good starting point:

F.E. Toole and S.E. Olive, "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing:
Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things", 97th
Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint No. 3894 (1994 Nov.).

And this paper is even online:

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Documents/White%20Papers/HarmanWhitePaperMLLListeningLab.pdf

Arny Krueger

May 21st 10, 02:46 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:25:56 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> This is certainly part of my contention. DBT and ABX
>>> tests are methodologically daunting even for electronics
>>> where, ostensibly, the electronics have ruler-flat
>>> frequency response and the same speakers are used for
>>> each unit being compared.
>>
>> Methodologically daunting?

>> Does this mean that you are unable to properly
>> level-match electronic components?

> No it means that one has to have a comparator and someone
> to operate it in a manner that this operator doesn't know
> which DUT he/she is selecting.

I guess you are unaware of the fact that one of the purposes of any of the
DBT comparators is to eliminate the need for a separate operator.

I guess you are unaware that many DBTs can be done using a computer with a
high quality audio interface, and that the comparator can be one of several
freely downloadable pieces of software.

> I means that levels must
> be matched to withing a fraction of a DB (the closer the
> better). It means that one has to (ideally) assemble a
> listening panel and line up the components under test.

Level matching is generally understood to be a requirement of even sighted
evaluations. Ditto for the need to line up listeners and components.

Looks to me like a common fallacy promoted by DBT detractors who condemn
DBTs for requirements that they have, that are also requirements for sighted
evaluations.

BTW, how do you do a sighted evaluation of components without first
obtaining them? ;-)

Scott[_6_]

May 21st 10, 02:46 PM

On May 20, 7:45=A0pm, bob > wrote:
> On May 20, 10:12=3DA0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> > Congratulations, that's my point. The fact that one cannot level match =
tw=3D
> o
> > speakers due to the magnitude of the frequency response differences bet=
we=3D
> en
> > them, disqualifies them from being the subject of a properly conducted =
DB=3D
> T. =3DA0
> > The louder one will always be chosen as being "better" - even if it is =
no=3D
>
> t. =3DA0
>
> I'll thank you not to twist my words. I said no such thing. In fact,
> it is quite possible to level-match between two speakers. Sean Olive
> does it all the time. His research would be pointless if he did not.
>
> My point was that level-matching is essential for ANY comparison,
> objective or subjective. Equal loudness differences do not disappear,
> just because you are a subjectivist.
>

You can't level match speakers that are different in design. But the
idea that this prevents the use of blind protocols in the subjective
evaluation of the relative merits of speaker systems v. a live
reference is pretty absurd. All that is involved in removing sighted
biases is making sure the testees don't know what they are comparing.
Levels are a completely different issue that is completely independent
of the effects of sighted biases. But you can't level matchspeakers.
If Sean Olive thinks he is actually matching levels that is just one
of several mistakes he is making IMO. The others are pretty straight
forward. Limited choice of source material. An insistance to not
optimise the placement or envirement of competing designs are the
other big issues I have with his methodologies. But that is the
subject of another thread.

Arny Krueger

May 21st 10, 03:57 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

>
> You can't level match speakers that are different in
> design.

Why not?

Let's presume that we level match the speakers with our PTF measuring
device positioned at the "sweet spot" that will be used during the
comparison.

Audio Empire

May 21st 10, 06:14 PM

On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:45:39 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On May 20, 10:12=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> Congratulations, that's my point. The fact that one cannot level match tw=
> o
>> speakers due to the magnitude of the frequency response differences betwe=
> en
>> them, disqualifies them from being the subject of a properly conducted DB=
> T. =A0
>> The louder one will always be chosen as being "better" - even if it is no=
> t. =A0
>
> I'll thank you not to twist my words. I said no such thing. In fact,
> it is quite possible to level-match between two speakers. Sean Olive
> does it all the time. His research would be pointless if he did not.

I say that it cannot ordinarily be done. Speakers vary too much in frequency
response characteristics. Match a pair at, say 400 Hz and at 60 Hz, or 5,000
Hz one or the other may as much as 6 dB different from the other one.
>
> My point was that level-matching is essential for ANY comparison,
> objective or subjective. Equal loudness differences do not disappear,
> just because you are a subjectivist.

Where do I say that I disagree with that, Bob? My point is that it cannot be
done in the ordinary course of things. Sure, you can introduce graphic or
partametric equalizers into the equation to equalize these frequency response
disparities, but what would that prove about the speakers themselves?
>
> bob
>

Audio Empire

May 21st 10, 06:14 PM

On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:46:02 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:25:56 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>> This is certainly part of my contention. DBT and ABX
>>>> tests are methodologically daunting even for electronics
>>>> where, ostensibly, the electronics have ruler-flat
>>>> frequency response and the same speakers are used for
>>>> each unit being compared.
>>>
>>> Methodologically daunting?
>
>>> Does this mean that you are unable to properly
>>> level-match electronic components?
>
>> No it means that one has to have a comparator and someone
>> to operate it in a manner that this operator doesn't know
>> which DUT he/she is selecting.
>
> I guess you are unaware of the fact that one of the purposes of any of the
> DBT comparators is to eliminate the need for a separate operator.

The only ones I've seen have been home-made and use a switch and an operator.

> I guess you are unaware that many DBTs can be done using a computer with a
> high quality audio interface, and that the comparator can be one of several
> freely downloadable pieces of software.

I am unaware of that. But ikt doesn't change my basic premise one iota.

bob

May 21st 10, 07:49 PM

On May 21, 1:14=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:45:39 -0700, bob wrote
>
> > I'll thank you not to twist my words. I said no such thing. In fact,
> > it is quite possible to level-match between two speakers. Sean Olive
> > does it all the time. His research would be pointless if he did not.
>
> I say that it cannot ordinarily be done. Speakers vary too much in freque=
ncy
> response characteristics. Match a pair at, say 400 Hz and at 60 Hz, or 5,=
000
> Hz one or the other may as much as 6 dB different from the other one.

Well, of course you don't want to level-match at every point on the
frequency spectrum. That would defeat the purpose, since the
subjective effect of audible FR differences is one of the key things
you want to identify.

But you need some way to equalize overall levels if you want to draw
any sort of reasonable conclusions about sound quality. I don't know
how Olive does it in his work, but I would think that using pink noise
to level-match would usefully improve any speaker comparison, and is
certainly not beyond the means of any audiophile.

> > My point was that level-matching is essential for ANY comparison,
> > objective or subjective. Equal loudness differences do not disappear,
> > just because you are a subjectivist.
>
> Where do I say that I disagree with that, Bob?

Neither did you acknowledge it, despite several promptings. But if
level-matching is important for any comparison, then it certainly
cannot be used as an argument against blind comparisons in particular.

Again: Any speaker comparison you do can be improved by doing exactly
the same comparison blind, if your specific goal is to evaluate sound
quality.

bob

Scott[_6_]

May 21st 10, 08:43 PM

On May 21, 7:57=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > You can't level match speakers that are different in
> > design.
>
> Why not?
>
> Let's presume that we level match the speakers with our PTF =A0measuring
> device positioned at the "sweet spot" that will be used during the
> comparison.

Using what as a source signal? Do you think the transients will be
level matched with different speakers? Do you think we will have level
match at all frequencies? What about comb filtering which will be
unique to each design? How do you level match for that? What of
dipoles or other differences in dispersion? Doesn't that affect levels
during the decay of a transient?

IMO the best choice is to level optimiise with musical material that
is going to be used for any comparison. The idea is to find the better
speaker no? Gotta compare each design at their best.

Audio Empire

May 21st 10, 11:26 PM

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:43:56 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On May 21, 7:57=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> You can't level match speakers that are different in
>>> design.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Let's presume that we level match the speakers with our PTF =A0measuring
>> device positioned at the "sweet spot" that will be used during the
>> comparison.
>
> Using what as a source signal? Do you think the transients will be
> level matched with different speakers? Do you think we will have level
> match at all frequencies? What about comb filtering which will be
> unique to each design? How do you level match for that? What of
> dipoles or other differences in dispersion? Doesn't that affect levels
> during the decay of a transient?
>
> IMO the best choice is to level optimiise with musical material that
> is going to be used for any comparison. The idea is to find the better
> speaker no? Gotta compare each design at their best.

This is my contention as well. Some people here seem so enamored with
bias-controlled tests that they fail to see those instances where such tests
won't work. I. myself, fully believe that bias-controlled tests for things
like CD decks, preamplifiers, amplifiers, even vinyl playing setups and
microphones are THE gold-standard; useful and very revealing. I also know
that such tests ruthlessly uncover the mythology in (most) so-called
audiophile "tweaks" and, of course in speaker cables and interconnects. But
for the reasons cited above, I simply cannot see how a Bias controlled test
on speakers could or would be either legitimate, or very revealing of
anything concrete. Add to the above mentioned difficulties, the near
impossibility of being able to set up BOTH pairs of speakers under evaluation
in the optimum room location (it is impossible for two masses to occupy the
same space at the same time). I also find it unlikely that speakers could be
set-up in a way that, either from sight or from location, the listeners
couldn't tell which pair was playing at any one time (one could conduct the
test in total darkness, I suppose. In which case, listeners might be able to
hear that the speakers were emanating from two different locations, but never
having seen them. they wouldn't know which they were hearing at any given
time. Unfortunately, total darkness presents it's own problems...).

Audio Empire

May 21st 10, 11:27 PM

On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:49:22 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On May 21, 1:14=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:45:39 -0700, bob wrote
<snip>
>
> Again: Any speaker comparison you do can be improved by doing exactly
> the same comparison blind, if your specific goal is to evaluate sound
> quality.
>
> bob
>

I say that for speakers, it's not necessary or even desirable to evaluate
speakers that way. Our own individual likes and dislikes will do that for us
very nicely, thank you.

Steven Sullivan

May 21st 10, 11:30 PM

Harry Lavo > wrote:
> >
> >> And a few other questions: Who were the listeners.....studio pros,
> >> audiophiles, SWM audio club members, the Boston Audio Society, college
> >> students, random off-the-street people, or whom? And finally, who (if
> >> anybody) sponsored the test?
> >
> > What is the point of this interrogation?

> You don't think knowing who sponsored a test that found a $500 minimonitor
> to be equally preferred to $12,000 speakers isn't germane? Suppose I told
> you the test found a $500 turntable/cartridge to be equally preferred to a
> state-of-the-art CD player playing the same recording....you don't think
> you'd want to know under what auspices the test was held, among whom, and
> whether or not it was sponsored by the manufacturer of the record player?

If the recording were really 'the same' , it would mean the CD had been made from
the LP output. In which case a finding of a preference trend in blind test would be
peculiar indeed.

Of course, loudspeakers DO sound different, so here, a preference trend is not
a priori peculiar.

> And assuming that the test was not sponsored or rigged somehow, would you
> not want to know what music was used, and how familiar the people listening
> would be to that kind of music, how accustomed they might be to listening to
> speakers similar to either of the speakers under test, or whether or not
> they had even ever heard anything similar (perhaps only earbuds)?

Olive and Toole have written about how music is chosen, how listeners
are trained, what metrics are used, etc., in their publications on measuring
loudspeaker preference. Perhaps you should read them -- again, apparently,
from the below -- before flinging accusations?

> I have read much, if not all, of the Olive/Harmon literature up to about two
> years ago. I recall one test that found the preferences of trained and
> largely untrained listeners to have come out similar.....and that was a test
> conducted in a rather austere testing environment, not in a relaxed home
> setting, for the specific purpose of finding how comparative their ratings
> were. I am not aware of any independent third-party replication of such a
> test. Are you? If so, perhaps you could share it with us with a
> descriptive summary and a citation?

A thrid party replication would require a third party to build a blind
testing apparatus for loudspeakers, as Harman did. So far, no one seems to have
stepped up to the plate. Cost may be a factor.

As for the 'austere' versus 'relaxed home environment', your employment of such
rhetoric is no substitute for scientific critique.

> > You know this, I'd bet most of the participants on this thread know this,
> > and Floyd Toole ever wrote it all up in his recent book 'Sound
> > Reproduction' -- which was glowingly reviewed by Kal Rubinson in
> > Stereophile -- for those who don't.

> Wow! One test, cited by one of its constructors, in a book viewed favorably
> by a Stereophile reviewer. That is impressive!

No, Harry, far from one test. Toole's book is a summary of decades of
tests, by many researchers.

> Don't get me wrong....I'm not knocking Olive's test....but it was just
> that....one test, and done for a specific purpose....to find out how many
> hours of training or not had to be imbued or found in listeners in order to
> get comparable ratings of a loudspeakers objective qualites in a test
> facility. It was hardly the holy grail of speaker testing And he has done
> other interesting tests as well....useful, I guess, for Harmon's development
> of car radios, single box systems, etc. not just (or even necessarily
> primarily) hi-fi speakers. But as I said in my earlier post, there is no
> evidence that this research has put Harman ahead of the pack when it comes
> to audiophile preferences.

"You guess" indeed. Harman's high-end speaker systems -- under the JBL , Revel labels -- most
certainly have been designed with the Toole/Olive test results in mind. And your point about
audiophile preference is absurdly miscast. DBTs show that 'audiophile preference' *imagines*
itself to be sound-based, when it's not. Audiophile preference fro loudspeakers is easily
rendered incoherent by ever-present biasing factors. When those factors are controlled for,
the preferences become far more coherent across different listeners -- both trained and
untrained, both 'in' the audio industry, and not. THAT is the point of the scientific
results.

But hey, don't take that all from me. Why not just engage Sean directly over at
AVSforum? Or on his blog?

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Steven Sullivan

May 21st 10, 11:32 PM

Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> > Audio Empire > wrote:

> > > I'll bet that the 400 mini-monitors don't have as much or as good quality
> > > bass as did the $12000 system nor could it load the room like a big system.
> >
> > > Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like
> > > amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small
> > > mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as
> > > possible
> > > - I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that
> > > has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast.
> >
> > I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test was like that?

> I see no such assumption.

What part of 'I'll bet' implies no assumption?

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

vlad

May 22nd 10, 01:01 AM

On May 21, 3:27=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:49:22 -0700, bob wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 1:14=3DA0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:45:39 -0700, bob wrote
> <snip>
>
> > Again: Any speaker comparison you do can be improved by doing exactly
> > the same comparison blind, if your specific goal is to evaluate sound
> > quality.
>
> > bob
>
> I say that for speakers, it's not necessary or even desirable to evaluate
> speakers that way. Our own individual likes and dislikes will do that for=
us
> very nicely, thank you.

I beg to disagree.

Definitely, when you are picking speakers for your room/system you
can use any criteria, nobody argues here about this. The same way when
I am picking speakers for my room I am the only judge (may be, my wife
too :-). However if somebody whose expertise in a field of speakers
that I trust made a speaker=92s comparison, then I definitely will pay
attention to results of this comparison. And may be it will change my
choice of speakers. So speaker=92s comparison does make sense for some
people. At least it creates some obstacle for charlatans peddling
overpriced mediocrity (no particular references :-).

Thx

vlad

Jenn[_2_]

May 22nd 10, 01:36 AM

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> > > > I'll bet that the 400 mini-monitors don't have as much or as good
> > > > quality
> > > > bass as did the $12000 system nor could it load the room like a big
> > > > system.
> > >
> > > > Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like
> > > > amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small
> > > > mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as
> > > > possible
> > > > - I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar
> > > > that
> > > > has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast.
> > >
> > > I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test was like that?
>
> > I see no such assumption.
>
> What part of 'I'll bet' implies no assumption?

Unless I'm mistaken, AE's "I'll bet" comment was concerning the quantity
and quality of bass, not whether or not there was difference in bass was
detected in the test.

Scott[_6_]

May 22nd 10, 01:36 AM

On May 21, 3:30=A0pm, Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> Harry Lavo > wrote:
>
> > >> And a few other questions: =A0Who were the listeners.....studio pros=
,
> > >> audiophiles, SWM audio club members, the Boston Audio Society, =A0co=
llege
> > >> students, random off-the-street people, or whom? =A0And finally, who=
(if
> > >> anybody) sponsored the test?
>
> > > What is the point of this interrogation?
> > You don't think knowing who sponsored a test that found a $500 minimoni=
tor
> > to be equally preferred to $12,000 speakers isn't germane? =A0Suppose I=
told
> > you the test found a $500 turntable/cartridge to be equally preferred t=
o a
> > state-of-the-art CD player playing the same recording....you don't thin=
k
> > you'd want to know under what auspices the test was held, among whom, a=
nd
> > whether or not it was sponsored by the manufacturer of the record playe=
r?
>
> If the recording were really 'the same' , it would mean the CD had been m=
ade from
> the LP output. =A0In which case a finding of a preference trend in blind =
test would be
> peculiar indeed.

Oh c'mon. It means the CD and the LP were sourced from the same
recording. CDs and LPs are copies of "the recording" on two different
media.

>
> Of course, loudspeakers DO sound different, so here, a preference trend i=
s not
> a priori peculiar.

So also do LPs and CDs sourced from the same recording in most cases.

>
> > And assuming that the test was not sponsored or rigged somehow, would y=
ou
> > not want to know what music was used, and how familiar the people liste=
ning
> > would be to that kind of music, how accustomed they might be to listeni=
ng to
> > speakers similar to either of the speakers under test, or whether or no=
t
> > they had even ever heard anything similar (perhaps only earbuds)?
>
> Olive and Toole have written about how music is chosen, how listeners
> are trained, what metrics are used, etc., in their publications on measur=
ing
> loudspeaker preference. =A0Perhaps you should =A0read them =A0-- again, a=
pparently,
> from the below -- before flinging accusations?

Did Toole and Olive do the comparison between the >500 dollar speakers
and the 12,000 speakers Arny is talking about?

Harry Lavo

May 22nd 10, 03:00 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
>> Jenn > wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>>
>> > > Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>> > > > I'll bet that the 400 mini-monitors don't have as much or as good
>> > > > quality
>> > > > bass as did the $12000 system nor could it load the room like a big
>> > > > system.
>> > >
>> > > > Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things
>> > > > like
>> > > > amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a
>> > > > small
>> > > > mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar
>> > > > as
>> > > > possible
>> > > > - I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something
>> > > > similar
>> > > > that
>> > > > has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast.
>> > >
>> > > I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test was like that?
>>
>> > I see no such assumption.
>>
>> What part of 'I'll bet' implies no assumption?
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, AE's "I'll bet" comment was concerning the quantity
> and quality of bass, not whether or not there was difference in bass was
> detected in the test.

I think you are probably correct.

Now we know that apparently the speakers were modified (equalized?) by
something called the "Perceptual Transfer Function" so perhaps the little
guys had some bass added (or the big guys had some bass subtracted)? A bit
of mud in the water, that.

bob

May 22nd 10, 10:15 AM

On May 21, 6:27=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> I say that for speakers, it's not necessary or even desirable to evaluate
> speakers that way. Our own individual likes and dislikes will do that for=
us
> very nicely, thank you.

Then it appears that you really don't understand the point of blind
comparisons.

The point of blind comparisons is to eliminate from the comparison the
influence of factors other than the sound quality of the items being
compared.

If you *want* those other factors (price, appearance, reputation,
etc.) to weigh in your decision-making, then by all means go ahead and
do your comparisons sighted. But then you really ought to ask yourself
whether sound quality is your paramount concern.

bob

Audio Empire

May 23rd 10, 02:00 AM

On Sat, 22 May 2010 02:15:27 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On May 21, 6:27=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> I say that for speakers, it's not necessary or even desirable to evaluate
>> speakers that way. Our own individual likes and dislikes will do that for=
> us
>> very nicely, thank you.
>
> Then it appears that you really don't understand the point of blind
> comparisons.

That's an unfounded and unsubstantiated assumption on your part. I kow very
well the point of bling comparisons.

> The point of blind comparisons is to eliminate from the comparison the
> influence of factors other than the sound quality of the items being
> compared.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don't,
won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-up
such a test, and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just as
well.

> If you *want* those other factors (price, appearance, reputation,
> etc.) to weigh in your decision-making, then by all means go ahead and
> do your comparisons sighted. But then you really ought to ask yourself
> whether sound quality is your paramount concern.

It is my paramount concern. But those other things do come into play and are
almost as important to me as they would be to anyone else. For instance, I
MIGHT think that a pair of Wilson WAMM speakers is the most accurate, best
sounding speakers on the planet (I don't, BTW, it's just an example*), but I
find that they are (A) much too big to fit in my listening environment and
(2) way out of my price range. That being the case finding out that they are
the speakers of choice in a DBT would be of little practical use.

*The same is true of the speakers that I DO find to be the best speakers on
the planet - Martin Logan's CLX. Too big for my room and at $30K (with subs)
far outside of my budget.

bob

May 23rd 10, 11:08 AM

On May 22, 9:00=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 02:15:27 -0700, bob wrote

> > Then it appears that you really don't understand the point of blind
> > comparisons.
>
> That's an unfounded and unsubstantiated assumption on your part. I kow ve=
ry
> well the point of bling comparisons.

You seem to substantiate it anew with every post. Including this one.
See below.

> > The point of blind comparisons is to eliminate from the comparison the
> > influence of factors other than the sound quality of the items being
> > compared.
>
> I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don'=
t,
> won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-u=
p
> such a test,

I will grant you that it is rather difficult for an amateur to conduct
a such a comparison. You'd need a fair bit of help, and you still
couldn't do it as well as Olive does it. But a cooperative dealer (if
such a beast exists) could help.

> and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
> long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just a=
s
> well.

If you really understood the point of blind comparisons, you couldn't
have written this. There is no way that a sighted "long term
evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models" could possibly tell
you very much about their sound quality, precisely because your
judgment will be so clouded by other factors that a blind comparison
would de-emphasize if not eliminate.

> > If you *want* those other factors (price, appearance, reputation,
> > etc.) to weigh in your decision-making, then by all means go ahead and
> > do your comparisons sighted. But then you really ought to ask yourself
> > whether sound quality is your paramount concern.
>
> It is my paramount concern.

Then you need to accept the fact that the methods you use to evaluate
speakers are highly flawed.

It sounds to me like you've talked yourself into a logical fallacy--
that because an objective comparison is difficult-to-impossible, a
subjective comparison must therefore be just as good. I'm afraid life
doesn't work that way.

bob

Arny Krueger

May 23rd 10, 03:53 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> Now we know that apparently the speakers were modified
> (equalized?) by something called the "Perceptual Transfer
> Function" so perhaps the little guys had some bass added
> (or the big guys had some bass subtracted)? A bit of mud
> in the water, that.

The big speakers were the reference that the little speakers were equalized
to match.

The big speakers had a *dip* in their bass that the little speakers lacked
until they were equalized to be similar.

The little speakers started with *more bass* because they had smoother
response in the bass range. No bass was removed from the big speakers and no
bass was added to the little speakers.

Again Harry, your speculations are false, this time at least twice.

Arny Krueger

May 23rd 10, 10:42 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:46:02 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:25:56 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> This is certainly part of my contention. DBT and ABX
>>>>> tests are methodologically daunting even for
>>>>> electronics where, ostensibly, the electronics have
>>>>> ruler-flat frequency response and the same speakers
>>>>> are used for each unit being compared.
>>>>
>>>> Methodologically daunting?
>>
>>>> Does this mean that you are unable to properly
>>>> level-match electronic components?
>>
>>> No it means that one has to have a comparator and
>>> someone to operate it in a manner that this operator
>>> doesn't know which DUT he/she is selecting.
>>
>> I guess you are unaware of the fact that one of the
>> purposes of any of the DBT comparators is to eliminate
>> the need for a separate operator.
>
> The only ones I've seen have been home-made and use a
> switch and an operator.

That means that you've never bothered to read any of the many articles about
the origional ABX Comparator, some of which are freely downloadable from the
web and many of which have been referenced on RAHE.

I can't overcome self-induced lack of knowlege. :-(

Arny Krueger

May 23rd 10, 10:42 PM

"bob" > wrote in message

> On May 21, 1:14=A0pm, Audio Empire
> > wrote:

>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:45:39 -0700, bob wrote

>>> I'll thank you not to twist my words. I said no such
>>> thing. In fact, it is quite possible to level-match
>>> between two speakers. Sean Olive does it all the time.
>>> His research would be pointless if he did not.

>> I say that it cannot ordinarily be done.

I arguably did the first level-matched ABX of loudspeakers over 35 years
ago. What I discovered then has AFAIK not really changed a lot. It is rarely
if ever possible to level-match loudspeakers at all relevant frequencies so
well that they are totally indistinguishable in the sense that we do it for
amplifiers. However it is possible to do it to such an extent that the
residual differences are very small, and that reliable opinions about sound
quality can be obtained.

>> Speakers vary too much in frequency response characteristics.

By what authority do you say this?

>> Match a pair at, say 400 Hz and at 60 Hz, or 5,000 Hz one or
>> the other may as much as 6 dB different from the other
>> one.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that we have rather sophisticated devices
called equalizers. FYI, they faciliate frequency-dependent level matching.

> Well, of course you don't want to level-match at every
> point on the frequency spectrum.

Why not?

>That would defeat the
> purpose, since the subjective effect of audible FR
> differences is one of the key things you want to identify.

Not so fast, there.

This is like power amplifiers all over again. There was a widely-held opinon
that amplifiers in general sounded vastly different and that certain
amplifiers had mystereious non-measurable properties (i.e., properties other
than linear and nonlinear distoriton) that made them sound better. The
ABXer's hypothesis was that if you at most matched the frequency response
reasonbly well, very many would sound the same and that there no mysteious
non-measurable differences. In general, we proved our hypothesis.

Equalizing the FR of speakers is relatively easy to do. There's no rational
reason to spend a lot of money on speakers to get a certain tailored
frequency response characteristic. Unless a speaker is so poor that it is
not economically feasible to buy an equalizer to obtain a desired frequency
response characteristic, it is reasonble to use an equalizer to get that
desired frequency response characteristic. With advances in DSP technology,
really powerful equalizers can have a reasonble cost. The skill level
required to equalize a speaker system have dropped considerably, and there
are even automated systems that can do the job credibly, according to many
audiophiles and music-lovers.

Audio Empire

May 23rd 10, 10:43 PM

On Sun, 23 May 2010 03:08:49 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On May 22, 9:00=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 02:15:27 -0700, bob wrote
>
>>> Then it appears that you really don't understand the point of blind
>>> comparisons.
>>
>> That's an unfounded and unsubstantiated assumption on your part. I kow ve=
> ry
>> well the point of bling comparisons.
>
> You seem to substantiate it anew with every post. Including this one.
> See below.
>
>>> The point of blind comparisons is to eliminate from the comparison the
>>> influence of factors other than the sound quality of the items being
>>> compared.
>>
>> I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don'=
> t,
>> won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-u=
> p
>> such a test,
>
> I will grant you that it is rather difficult for an amateur to conduct
> a such a comparison. You'd need a fair bit of help, and you still
> couldn't do it as well as Olive does it. But a cooperative dealer (if
> such a beast exists) could help.
>
>> and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
>> long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just a=
> s
>> well.
>
> If you really understood the point of blind comparisons, you couldn't
> have written this. There is no way that a sighted "long term
> evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models" could possibly tell
> you very much about their sound quality, precisely because your
> judgment will be so clouded by other factors that a blind comparison
> would de-emphasize if not eliminate.
>
>>> If you *want* those other factors (price, appearance, reputation,
>>> etc.) to weigh in your decision-making, then by all means go ahead and
>>> do your comparisons sighted. But then you really ought to ask yourself
>>> whether sound quality is your paramount concern.
>>
>> It is my paramount concern.
>
> Then you need to accept the fact that the methods you use to evaluate
> speakers are highly flawed.
>
> It sounds to me like you've talked yourself into a logical fallacy--
> that because an objective comparison is difficult-to-impossible, a
> subjective comparison must therefore be just as good. I'm afraid life
> doesn't work that way.
>
> bob
>

That's your opinion. You're entitled to it. Mine is otherwise. As you
concede, it is rather difficult for an amateur to conduct such a comparison.
Which is just one of my objections to it. I also see that you have neatly
snipped the practical considerations that I mentioned out of your response.
You know those considerations which weaken your argument that DBT is de
riguer and which reinforce mine that says that DBT for speakers is
impractical, and tells only part of the story? But that's OK and expected.

Arny Krueger

May 23rd 10, 10:43 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> This is my contention as well.

In the final analysis the logical rejoinder is bluntly: "So what".

Same questions as I gave to Scott.

Are your opinions about test signals that much better-informed than those of
the scientists and technicans who developed and produced the PTF? They are
well-educated and highly experienced.
Should they bow to you and worship your opinons, or should
they do what they, in their probable far higher state of technical knowlege
and
experience think is right?

Are your opinions about designing speakers that much better-informed than
those of the scientists and technicans who developed and produced the PTF?
Some of them have advanced degrees and one has a PhD. They have designed
commercially sucessful loudspeakers at various price points from low to
high, some of which have sold 100,000s of units. Do you have chops in the
area of loudspeaker design that are that much better than theirs?

> Some people here seem so
> enamored with bias-controlled tests that they fail to see
> those instances where such tests won't work.

I regret to have to recall that I am speaking to somone whose knowlege of
bias-controlled tests is so poor that they don't understand that virtually
all DBT comparators do not require an operator during the test. One of the
most important of virtually every DBT comparator is that it functions as a
test administrator.

> I. myself,
> fully believe that bias-controlled tests for things like
> CD decks, preamplifiers, amplifiers, even vinyl playing
> setups and microphones are THE gold-standard; useful and
> very revealing.

Unfortunately you have recently demonstrated that you don't understand even
the basics of how most DBTs are performed and have been performed for the
past 35 years. You have revealed that you have not taken advantage of the
online literature about DBTs that has been posted here for over a decade.

> I also know that such tests ruthlessly
> uncover the mythology in (most) so-called audiophile
> "tweaks" and, of course in speaker cables and
> interconnects.

Why wouldn't they work for speakers, especially given the decade or more of
sucess that people like Toole and Olive have experienced? Again, you have
recently revealed that you have not taken advantage of the online literature
about DBTs of loudspeakers that has been posted on the web for over a
decade.

Harry Lavo

May 23rd 10, 10:44 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Now we know that apparently the speakers were modified
>> (equalized?) by something called the "Perceptual Transfer
>> Function" so perhaps the little guys had some bass added
>> (or the big guys had some bass subtracted)? A bit of mud
>> in the water, that.
>
> The big speakers were the reference that the little speakers were
> equalized
> to match.
>
> The big speakers had a *dip* in their bass that the little speakers lacked
> until they were equalized to be similar.
>
> The little speakers started with *more bass* because they had smoother
> response in the bass range. No bass was removed from the big speakers and
> no
> bass was added to the little speakers.
>
> Again Harry, your speculations are false, this time at least twice.

Since you choose to purport that this was an impressive test of the little
speakes, and failed to accurately represent that the little speakers had
been "doctored," I will rest my case. Had you accurately and fully reported
the test, I and Audio Empire and I am sure others would have lost interest
immediately and all this huffing and puffing could have been eliminated.

bob

May 24th 10, 02:32 AM

On May 23, 5:42=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "bob" > wrote in message
>
> >That would defeat the
> > purpose, since the subjective effect of audible FR
> > differences is one of the key things you want to identify.
>
> Not so fast, there.
>
> This is like power amplifiers all over again. There was a widely-held opi=
non
> that amplifiers in general sounded vastly different and that certain
> amplifiers had mystereious non-measurable properties (i.e., properties ot=
her
> than linear and nonlinear distoriton) that made them sound better. The
> ABXer's hypothesis was that if you at most matched the frequency response
> reasonbly well, very many would sound the same and that there no mysteiou=
s
> non-measurable differences. In general, we proved our hypothesis.

Granted. But my understanding is that FR differences between
amplifiers tend to be rather small, except for the case of impedance-
caused differences (which is largely a function of certain tube
designs). By contrast, audible FR differences between speakers can be
substantial and so common as to represent the norm.

You are about to make the argument that every system should include an
equalizer to correct any FR irregularities in the speakers. I think
you would agree that using an equalizer to correct FR irregularities
in an amplifier makes far less sense than simply buying a good
amplifier in the first place. And a good amplifier, as defined by FR,
comes very cheap these days.

> Equalizing the FR of speakers is relatively easy to do. There's no ration=
al
> reason to spend a lot of money on speakers to get a certain tailored
> frequency response characteristic. Unless a speaker is so poor that it is
> not economically feasible to buy an equalizer to obtain a desired frequen=
cy
> response characteristic, =A0it is reasonble to use an equalizer to get th=
at
> desired frequency response characteristic. With advances in DSP technolog=
y,
> really powerful equalizers can have a reasonble cost. The skill level
> required to equalize a speaker system have dropped considerably, and ther=
e
> are even automated systems that can do the job credibly, according to man=
y
> audiophiles and music-lovers.

Granted. But I would not banish from the Audiophile Guild anyone who
chose not to employ an equalizer, and chose instead to seek out a
speaker with excellent FR. If that is their choice (and I suspect that
IS the choice of everyone who is arguing the other side of the
question here), then equalizing speakers for a blind comparison would
be counterproductive.

bob

Scott[_6_]

May 24th 10, 10:34 AM

On May 23, 2:43=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > This is my contention as well.
>
> In the final analysis the logical rejoinder is bluntly: "So what".
>
> Same questions as I gave to Scott.
>

Which I answered. You have yet to offer a resonponse to my answer. How
does one level match when the effective dynamic range of two speakers
are different or the audible frequency extension is greater in one
than the other? How does one account for things like comb filtering
effects or room interatcion during the decay? I'm not entirely
convinced that EQ can account for the sort of frequency response
differences one finds in speakers either. The sort of spikes and dips
you get are hardly something your garden variety equalizer can
accurately compensate for. Besides, if you start EQing the speakers
you are no longer comparing the speakers as they were designed. You
are comparing them and whatever EQ is applied. You are in effect
altering the design and intentions of the designer at that point. IMO
you just killed the test. If either speaker is found better with EQ in
play the designer of the losing speaker has every right to cry foul.
And what of placement and room treatment? Optimise for one speaker and
you may be screwing up the other. The radiation patterns and the room
itself will affect the levels when you have transients and decays.
Ultimately the speakers have to be compared with consideration of how
they would actually be used by a consumer.

IMO a more fair and better way to set levels is to optimise the room
and placement of speakers in the room for each competing design using
whatever program material will be used for any comparisons.

Arny Krueger

May 24th 10, 02:52 PM

"bob" > wrote in message

> On May 23, 5:42 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "bob" > wrote in message
>>
>>> That would defeat the
>>> purpose, since the subjective effect of audible FR
>>> differences is one of the key things you want to
>>> identify.
>>
>> Not so fast, there.
>>
>> This is like power amplifiers all over again. There was
>> a widely-held opinon that amplifiers in general sounded
>> vastly different and that certain amplifiers had
>> mystereious non-measurable properties (i.e., properties
>> other than linear and nonlinear distoriton) that made
>> them sound better. The ABXer's hypothesis was that if
>> you at most matched the frequency response reasonbly
>> well, very many would sound the same and that there no
>> mysteious non-measurable differences. In general, we
>> proved our hypothesis.
>
> Granted. But my understanding is that FR differences
> between amplifiers tend to be rather small, except for
> the case of impedance- caused differences (which is
> largely a function of certain tube designs). By contrast,
> audible FR differences between speakers can be
> substantial and so common as to represent the norm.

In either case, equipment to deal with differences of this kind have long
been on the market and are now being sold for very reasonable prices.

> You are about to make the argument that every system
> should include an equalizer to correct any FR
> irregularities in the speakers.

I didn't know that reliable mind-reading was one of the things that you
claim!

If you would phrase that as follows:

"You are not adverse to systems that include an equalizers to correct any FR
irregularities in the speakers."

I would agree.

If you would phrase that as follows:

"You believe that where economically feasiible, the use of equalizers to
correct any FR
irregularities in the speaker/room combination should be considered"

I would agree.

> I think you would agree
> that using an equalizer to correct FR irregularities in
> an amplifier makes far less sense than simply buying a
> good amplifier in the first place.

Yes, for economic reasons.

> And a good amplifier,
> as defined by FR, comes very cheap these days.

Exactly.

>> Equalizing the FR of speakers is relatively easy to do.
>> There's no rational reason to spend a lot of money on
>> speakers to get a certain tailored frequency response
>> characteristic. Unless a speaker is so poor that it is
>> not economically feasible to buy an equalizer to obtain
>> a desired frequency response characteristic, it is
>> reasonble to use an equalizer to get that desired
>> frequency response characteristic. With advances in DSP
>> technology, really powerful equalizers can have a
>> reasonble cost. The skill level required to equalize a
>> speaker system have dropped considerably, and there are
>> even automated systems that can do the job credibly,
>> according to many audiophiles and music-lovers.

> Granted. But I would not banish from the Audiophile Guild
> anyone who chose not to employ an equalizer, and chose
> instead to seek out a speaker with excellent FR.

It's their money to use or abuse. However, there's no evidence that even a
speaker with excellent FR might not benefit from some equalization. Lots of
good speakers in bad rooms. And while equalizers aren't always the best way
to fix up a room, people do a lot of things for reasons of appearance and
other practical considerations.

> If that
> is their choice (and I suspect that IS the choice of
> everyone who is arguing the other side of the question
> here), then equalizing speakers for a blind comparison
> would be counterproductive.

I would not presume to know the preferences of everybody who posts here,
even if I cared about it. ;-)

Sebastian Kaliszewski

May 24th 10, 06:54 PM

Hello,

This is problably my first post here, but I'm a long time lurker in this
newsgroup :)

Audio Empire wrote:
[...]
> Not at all. Human perception will always bias toward the louder of two
> sources, that makes level matching de riguer for eliminating bias.

But then either we know how (we) humans preceive sound levels at various
parts of the audbile spectrum so one good curve could be used for level
matching, or we don't know but in a such case a test could include
varius kinds of level matching (like pink noise matching, 2kHz tone
matching, 1/3 octave noise matching around 2KHz or maybe 1KHz, or maybe
averaged at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, or more complex ones). That later
option makes the test larger and longer but it does not make it impossible.

> I don't get your point. These ARE all bias control issues.

Well, they could be as well the (one of) measured quantity.

> They are NOT
> sighted bias issues or even expectational bias issues, but they are audible
> bias issues. The human brain will always pick out the loudest source as the
> best.

It's not universally true. But what we know about it comes from DBT
testing for that (such a test is pretty easy to setup -- just use the
very same system and just switch levels a bit and test when people see
any difference and how they preceive it).

> It may be that the louder speaker is NOT the better of the two, but in
> an ABX or DBT, the louder speaker will always predominate. Seems to me that
> in order for such a test to be relevant, that both speakers must be level
> matched just as an amplifier or a CD player must be level matched and for the
> same reason.

Or just do tests at various types of level matching (if you don't know
which one to choose).

> I don't agree at all. Level matching across the audible spectrum is just as
> necessary in a speaker DBT as it would be when comparing electronic
> components. If you can't do that, then a speaker DBT where the levels aren't
> precisely matched would be just as worthless as an amplifier DBT where the
> levels weren't precisely matched.
>

Unless you included in your test the evaluation of what kind of level
matching works best.

regards
Sebastian Kaliszewski
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

Audio Empire

May 25th 10, 03:19 PM

On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:42:02 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>

>> The only ones I've seen have been home-made and use a
>> switch and an operator.
>
> That means that you've never bothered to read any of the many articles about
> the origional ABX Comparator, some of which are freely downloadable from the
> web and many of which have been referenced on RAHE.
>
> I can't overcome self-induced lack of knowlege. :-(
>
>

No. What that means is that I have been party to many DBT tests, but since I
was a participant and not the instigator, I had no control over what kind of
comparator was used. Since I was not running the test (and had no intention
of starting any), articles about the original ABX comparator were (and
largely remain) irrelevant to me.

Ed Seedhouse[_2_]

May 26th 10, 10:07 AM

On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
> into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
> used by the writer.

In this regard an article at the PCWorld web site dated May 24 may be
of interest. It is titled "Audio Compression May Not Be as Bad as You
Think" and adds "Our tests with a jury of music professionals found
that they had a hard time distinguishing between compressed and
uncompressed song". The whole article may be found at:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/195963/audio_compression_may_not_be_as_bad_a=
s_you_think.html

The test methodology is described and the article contains hyperlinks
to the actual samples used, so you can make the comparison yourself.

I found the link to this article today at
"www.marginalrevolution.com", which I generally read daily. It is not
a site about audio and the link rather surprised me.

Andrew Haley

May 26th 10, 03:51 PM

Ed Seedhouse > wrote:
> On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
>> into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
>> used by the writer.
>
> In this regard an article at the PCWorld web site dated May 24 may be
> of interest. It is titled "Audio Compression May Not Be as Bad as You
> Think" and adds "Our tests with a jury of music professionals found
> that they had a hard time distinguishing between compressed and
> uncompressed song". The whole article may be found at:
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/195963/audio_compression_may_not_be_as_bad_a=
> s_you_think.html
>
> The test methodology is described and the article contains hyperlinks
> to the actual samples used, so you can make the comparison yourself.

Their methodology isn't that great, but the result isn't very
surprising. The classic paper [1], now twenty years old, did the test
double-blind, and was much more thorough.

Encoders have improved since that paper. I don't know if anyone has
redone the tests more recently.

Andrew.

[1] Soulodre, G., Grusec, T. & Lavoie, M., Thibault, L. (1998)
Subjective Evaluation of State-of-the-Art 2- Channel Audio Codecs,
Journal of the Audio Engineering Soc., pp. 164-177
http://audiopages.googlepages.com/Codecevaluationtests.pdf

Audio Empire

May 26th 10, 07:13 PM

On Wed, 26 May 2010 02:07:03 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article >):

> On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
>> into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
>> used by the writer.
>
> In this regard an article at the PCWorld web site dated May 24 may be
> of interest. It is titled "Audio Compression May Not Be as Bad as You
> Think" and adds "Our tests with a jury of music professionals found
> that they had a hard time distinguishing between compressed and
> uncompressed song". The whole article may be found at:
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/195963/audio_compression_may_not_be_as_bad_a=
> s_you_think.html
>
> The test methodology is described and the article contains hyperlinks
> to the actual samples used, so you can make the comparison yourself.
>
> I found the link to this article today at
> "www.marginalrevolution.com", which I generally read daily. It is not
> a site about audio and the link rather surprised me.
>

I don't doubt these findings at all - especially since the "jury" was a group
of musicians. It is my experience that most musicians don't listen to music
in the same way as do audio enthusiasts. We listen for sound quality, they
listen for such things as intonation, pacing, playing technique, etc. I had a
well known symphony conductor (and world-class cellist) tell me one time that
he didn't even have a stereo (and wasn't interested in getting one) and that
he could hear what he was listening for on an AM table radio! I've heard
similar stories from other musicians.

IOW, I'd be more willing to accept the results of this test, if the "jury"
had been experienced audio enthusiasts rather than "music professionals" for
the simple reason that audio enthusiasts train their "ears" to hear the SOUND
of music as opposed to strictly it's substance.

One result that I do agree with, however is that WMA sounds better than MP3.
It does. So does Sony's ATRAC compression scheme.

Greg Wormald

May 26th 10, 10:50 PM

When the new version of iTunes arrived with it's ability to
automatically convert to 128 kbps from lossloss for music transferred to
a mobile player, I set up a blind test of some tracks. I would love to
have the ability to throw out my reduced bit duplicates.

I compared the 128k versions to the lossless that I have saved, using a
couple of tracks with which I am very familiar and which I consider
'challenging' for a reduced bit system to manage. I linked random
versions to my living room stereo, and had the computer decide which
version to play and build a playlist for reference.

I got each tracks' bit rate correct, easily, and I disliked the 128k
versions.

I have been using 192k versions for my mobile listening, and do find
that OK for the purpose, but given the results I won't be going to 128k
for mobile use, and certainly won't be converting my 160 GB of music
from lossless.

Greg

bob

May 27th 10, 12:35 AM

On May 26, 2:13=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> IOW, I'd be more willing to accept the results of this test, if the "jury=
"
> had been experienced audio enthusiasts rather than "music professionals" =
for
> the simple reason that audio enthusiasts train their "ears" to hear the S=
OUND
> of music as opposed to strictly it's substance.

I've seen precious little evidence that most audio enthusiasts "train
their ears" at all--or would have a clue about how to go about doing
so.

Many of them seem to think that attending concerts is the way to do
it. :-(

bob

Jenn[_2_]

May 27th 10, 04:40 PM

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:

> I don't doubt these findings at all - especially since the "jury" was a group
> of musicians. It is my experience that most musicians don't listen to music
> in the same way as do audio enthusiasts. We listen for sound quality, they
> listen for such things as intonation, pacing, playing technique, etc. I had a
> well known symphony conductor (and world-class cellist) tell me one time that
> he didn't even have a stereo (and wasn't interested in getting one) and that
> he could hear what he was listening for on an AM table radio! I've heard
> similar stories from other musicians.

My reaction to the above is, as usual, "it depends". I know many
conductors and performing musicians who are "audiophiles". For example,
Michael Tilson Thomas has a fine home audio system (Oracle, Audio
Research, Quad, etc.). In each of my musical performance
"worlds"...conductor, guitarist, trombonist... fine details of the
quality of sound, especially instrumental and vocal timbres, are among
the highest priorities, and it's this area that drives me nuts with so
much home audio and so many recordings.

Audio Empire

May 28th 10, 06:14 PM

On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:20:01 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> IOW, I'd be more willing to accept the results of this test, if the "jury"
>> had been experienced audio enthusiasts rather than "music professionals"
>> for
>> the simple reason that audio enthusiasts train their "ears" to hear the
>> SOUND
>> of music as opposed to strictly it's substance.
>
> Let me relate two anecdotes, one that I was personally witness
> to, that indicates that the "training" you refer to can be
> often little more than uneducated and unrealistic expectations.

That's fine but I *know* better. Besides, it's irrelevant. Musicians who
don't care about reproduced sound are an old story, one that is fairly widely
reported. Sure, there are exceptions, but my point still stands. People who
do not care about sound aren't very critical of it.

> First was a review published in, I believe, Absolute Sound,
> involving a recording of harpsichird. The reviewer stated
> that the recording was presented with such clarity that it
> was easy to perceive the vertical imaging of the two layers of
> strings, apparently corresponding to the upper and lower manual.

Like much "audiophilia" this is nonsense. You can't even hear that when
you're standing next to a harpsichord, much less from a recording of it
(assuming, for a moment that a harpsichord had two layers of strings, which
they don't). It's like saying that you can tell from a recording that some
valves on a saxophone are near the top of the sax and some are at the bottom.

> Well, no harpsichord has such a physical arrangement. one manual
> or two, there's but a single soundboard which emits the sound.

Even if it did what comes out of the harpsichord's sounding box is the
"image" of the instrument, not how the strings might be arranged!
<snip>

Audio Empire

May 28th 10, 11:01 PM

On Fri, 28 May 2010 13:20:27 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:20:01 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>>
>>>> IOW, I'd be more willing to accept the results of this test, if the
>>>> "jury"
>>>> had been experienced audio enthusiasts rather than "music professionals"
>>>> for
>>>> the simple reason that audio enthusiasts train their "ears" to hear the
>>>> SOUND
>>>> of music as opposed to strictly it's substance.
>>>
>>> Let me relate two anecdotes, one that I was personally witness
>>> to, that indicates that the "training" you refer to can be
>>> often little more than uneducated and unrealistic expectations.
>>
>> That's fine but I *know* better. Besides, it's irrelevant. Musicians who
>> don't care about reproduced sound are an old story, one that is fairly
>> widely
>> reported. Sure, there are exceptions, but my point still stands. People who
>> do not care about sound aren't very critical of it.
>
> Ansd you seemed to have missed my point: the notion of a
> "trained" audio enthusiast is a myth.

I suspect that my use of the word "trained" was inappropriate in this
context. I know what I meant, and I suspect that there are many other
audiophiles who will know what I'm talking about too, still, in the name of
accuracy, let me rephrase. Audio enthusiasts tend to listen for those audible
characteristics in reproduced music, that differentiate it from each person's
memory of real thing. I.E., this speaker is too bright - the live ensemble
wouldn't sound like that, or, this preamp lacks bass, or, this phono
cartridge is distorted in the midrange, etc. Audio enthusiasts hear these
things and notice them because they CARE about them. Some characteristics,
like pin-point imaging, are desirable, some, such as tracing distortion in
phono playback or digital artifacts in compression schemes, are not
desirable. Non-enthusiasts generally do not notice these things because they
do not care about them, and often do not even know to what to attribute
anything that they DO hear because they aren't familiar with the processes
involved.

The term "trained ears" merely indicates that someone cares enough about the
differences between the sound of live music and the sound of reproduced music
to have forced themselves into a state of heightened awareness of those
characteristics and are able to identify and, in some instances, even
quantify them. And, of course, to recognize those characteristics which
constitute the difference between real music, well reproduced music and badly
reproduced music.

> What sort of
> "training" do they get? Which acknowledged qualified and
> vetted experts in the field of "audio enthusiasts" provides
> them their training? Who is in charge of overseeing this
> training program and ensuring it's maintained at the highest
> possible consistent reliable quality? What "audio enthusiast"
> acreditation program is there?
>
> I'm not talking about musicians. I'm talking about your
> assertion of "trained audio enthusiasts."

The questions are meaningless because I made no assertion about "Trained
audio enthusiasts." I said that "...audio enthusiasts train their "ears" to
hear the SOUND of music ..." I made no reference to any sort of formal
training. In fact, the phrase "audio enthusiasts train their "ears" should,
to most people who speak, read and write English proficiently, infer a self
discipline rather than an externally provided one.

I'd be so bold
> to suggest that what you refer to as "trained" could be
> indistinguishable from "uneducated bias" in many cases, two
> of which I prpvided anecdotal evidence for.

Your two examples are non sequiturs which have nothing whatsoever to do with
what I was talking about.

>>> First was a review published in, I believe, Absolute Sound,
>>> involving a recording of harpsichird. The reviewer stated
>>> that the recording was presented with such clarity that it
>>> was easy to perceive the vertical imaging of the two layers of
>>> strings, apparently corresponding to the upper and lower manual.
>>
>> Like much "audiophilia" this is nonsense.
>
> Well, if much audiophilia is nonsense, as you state, what
> separates the nonsensical audiophile from the "audio
> enthusiast" with the "trained ears?" Trained by whom? How?
> To do what?

Again, you have inferred much into my statement that simply is not there.
There is no "training", per se. it is a self induced awareness of what real
music should sound like. My assertion was simple. Audiophiles CARE about
sound and are therefore more likely to hear anomalies in reproduced sound
than are people to whom sound, in and of itself, has little importance. Were
I a violinist, for instance, instead of an audio enthusiast, how good am I
going to be at hearing compression artifacts when I'm listening, not to the
sound of the violin being played, but rather to the player's technique,
intonation and 'tone'? The answer is that I wouldn't, because I'm not
listening to that. My interest is in the violinist (or flautist, or horn
player, whatever). All I care about is that the recording lets me hear the
musician. I can listen around poor sound, and in fact, most likely, don't
even notice it.

Steven Sullivan

May 31st 10, 03:28 PM

Audio Empire > wrote:

> I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don't,
> won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-up
> such a test,

for consumers, true.

> and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
> long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just as
> well.

...and that's a contention that you cannot support. You are
making a faulty assumption that 'long term' evaluation mitigates
'sighted' bias.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Audio Empire

May 31st 10, 08:01 PM

On Mon, 31 May 2010 07:28:53 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don't,
>> won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-up
>> such a test,
>
> for consumers, true.

And that's really all I'm saying about the practicality of such a test. In a
professional setting, it certainly should be able to set-up such a test, even
though it would be elaborate, require expensive test equipment and a
comparator of some type - among other things. but it would be doable. But
Consumers and even dedicated hobbyists would find it a daunting, and perhaps
even a Herculean task.
>
>> and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
>> long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just as
>> well.
>
> ..and that's a contention that you cannot support. You are
> making a faulty assumption that 'long term' evaluation mitigates
> 'sighted' bias.

No I'm not assuming that. For speakers, "sighted" and "expectational" bias is
an important component in the selection process. There are things like price
and physical size to consider as well as sound (not to mention wife
acceptance factor). Speakers are not like amplifiers, which can be hidden in
a cabinet somewhere, They are usually large, imposing furniture structures,
and price /performance don't really track. If one likes how speakers sound,
look, and find the price acceptable, then buy 'em. It's about the best one
can hope for.

Of course, if one has the facilities, one can select several speakers that
pass the visual and cost tests and then do a DBT on those, but again, we're
back in impractical-land again.

Steven Sullivan

June 3rd 10, 03:45 AM

Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 07:28:53 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
> (in article >):

> > Audio Empire > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don't,
> >> won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-up
> >> such a test,
> >
> > for consumers, true.

> And that's really all I'm saying about the practicality of such a test. In a
> professional setting, it certainly should be able to set-up such a test, even
> though it would be elaborate, require expensive test equipment and a
> comparator of some type - among other things. but it would be doable. But
> Consumers and even dedicated hobbyists would find it a daunting, and perhaps
> even a Herculean task.

But it was not impossible for Harman to set up such tests. And they
have produced data from them that can be useful to consumers. So all is not
lost.

> >> and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
> >> long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just as
> >> well.
> >
> > ..and that's a contention that you cannot support. You are
> > making a faulty assumption that 'long term' evaluation mitigates
> > 'sighted' bias.

> No I'm not assuming that. For speakers, "sighted" and "expectational" bias is
> an important component in the selection process. There are things like price
> and physical size to consider as well as sound (not to mention wife
> acceptance factor).

Of course. But I thought we were talking about about long-term evaluation
of the *sound*. That remains subject to bias from the very factors
that you mention , and others.

> and price /performance don't really track. If one likes how speakers sound,
> look, and find the price acceptable, then buy 'em. It's about the best one
> can hope for.

True, though I would add that one can seek loudspeakers with good
objective performance too.

But all along I thought we had been talking about judging the *sound*
of loudspeakers. If judgement of sound quality typically is infused with
various biases that have nothing to do with the sound, then
that should inform claims you make about the sound quality.

If you agree with that, there's not much to debate (with me, at least)

> Of course, if one has the facilities, one can select several speakers that
> pass the visual and cost tests and then do a DBT on those, but again, we're
> back in impractical-land again.

But, again, the work that *has* been done in this area, using
impractical means, is useful too. The key finding, which should
be gladsome tidings to true audiophiles, is that speakers that
'measure' good in certain known ways, tend to *sound* good to listeners
too.

Logically, audiophiles should push for the industry to standardize
loudspeaker testing and test reporting. Then at least there is an
*objective* basis for comparison.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

XYLOPHONE

June 17th 10, 11:54 PM

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
> There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
> had for $2.49.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?ref=3Dbusin
>
> =A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
For
> =A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
> =A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
a
> =A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.
>
> =A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
,
> =A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
ect
> =A0 =A0of scorn.""

I am truly convinced that the highest quality audio is from analog
records,
recorded from professional studio tapes. as follows:

First half of century: 78 rpm was the only spread technology. From
listening
experience, they got better as years went by. Especially as they went
from
non-electrical technology to the arrival of master tapes. Of course
the real
challenge is to find 78s in EX or Mint condition and use the right
stylus to
benefit.

1950s: Vinyl 45s and LPs arrived from 1949 on. A media war began.
With the RIAA standards adopted in 1953 or so, the recordings then had
to
have a standard balance between bass and treble. From listening
experience, late 78s in pristine condition played with good stylus
really
make your body vibrate and fell "live in the studio", really! The
other day I
listened to "Slow Train Blues" from Leathernecks on Mercury 78 from
1955,
and I really felt that, because I cleaned the record and I evaluated
it as EX or
better. The downside of 78s is truly wear, and the loss in quality is
more significant due to them playing on vintage equipment, with heavy
styli
or not always the right one. Second top would be of course the 45,
then the
LPs. Still analog with truly high fidelity if record is clean and
played with a
good stylus. The advantage is that vinyl is less fragile than 78s. I
find the
higher the speed the better the quality, because you cover more
material
per unit of time. CDs reissus of 50s performances will sound clearer,
yes,
but I feel I can't feel the vibrations, like I do with LPs or higher
speed
playbacks.

1960s: 78s stopped in 1960, so the top is now 45s, then LPs. Vinyl
continues to provide high fidelity and makes you vibrate. 60's records
have
deep grooves, more distant, probably because the songs are shorter
(average 2 to 3 minutes). Therefore they play loud and imperfections
or
defects are much less noticeable. Still getting copies in good or
better,
new condition, will give you the top in high fidelity. Original
pressings are the
way to go. If impossible, I would get a re-issue, provided it's been
manufactured no later than 1980s, to make sure it's analog throughout
the whole recording process from master tapes.
An example: I preferred spending $325 on an original pressing of a
45rpm
from Underworld "Go Away"/"Bound" on Regency R-979 than getting the
2007 re-issue from Garage Greats at $15. They pretend it's the same,
but no. I listened to both, and the original truly makes me vibrate.
The grooves
on the reissue are not as deep, and I have never been able to
determine what
is their source and if digitalisation was involved. And my original
pressing is
only VG-, many clicks, but main thing is the overall quality is there!

1970s: From mid 70s on, technology permitted to enhance sound
clearness.
Grooves are less deep, but I feel a wide range of sound effects can be
detected, especially if I use headphones. Some record companies are
better
than others, but in general, all records allow me to enjoy a
continuous
analog signal I can feel with my body. I use a $50 Shure stylus, but I
can
imagine if someone uses a more high-end one he can get even more from
his vinyl!

1980s: As for synthetizers, computer-assisted studio sound effects,
robotic
voices, etc... 1980s is the STATE OF THE ART decade, and I think it
will
remain 1st on the High Scores forever! Yes, simply because everything
has
been pressed on vinyl. I still find 45s are unbeatable because more
material
is covered per time unit, still LPs continue to bypass CD, even more
MP3 by
far. For example, I find Vertigo records make really good products.
Listening
to a Tears for Fears 45 is really a fantastic experience, I feel
people who
don't have vinyl are missing.

1990s to today: If processing is analog right from studio tapes to
record
pressing, consider it's the TOP like 80's. Otherwise, if any digital
process is
involved, you will probably won't feel the listening experience even
if they
try to make you believe it will by pressing it to vinyl.

Portability: The real disadvantage of analog records is it's not
portable. The
solution I use is to record my vinyl onto Metal or CrO2 tapes and
listening
with my good'ole Walkman! Yes I lose a bit of quality with respect to
the
original records, but I find it's still way ahead iPods :-)

Luc

Audio Empire

June 18th 10, 01:42 AM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:54:12 -0700, XYLOPHONE wrote
(in article >):

> On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
>> There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
>> had for $2.49.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?ref=3Dbusin
>>
>> =A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
> For
>> =A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
>> =A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
> a
>> =A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.
>>
>> =A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
> ,
>> =A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
> ect
>> =A0 =A0of scorn.""
>
> I am truly convinced that the highest quality audio is from analog
> records,
> recorded from professional studio tapes. as follows:

Subjectively and generally speaking, I tend to agree. Although, from a
technical standpoint, I do not pretend to understand why this should be so.
OTOH, the most palpably real audio recording I've ever heard, is one of my
own making and on a 44.1 KHz/16 bit CD, it sounds almost as good as it does
the 24-bit/192KHz master! Both sound better than ANY commercial recording
that I've ever heard irrespective of source or media or technology used.
>
> First half of century: 78 rpm was the only spread technology. From
> listening
> experience, they got better as years went by. Especially as they went
> from
> non-electrical technology to the arrival of master tapes. Of course
> the real
> challenge is to find 78s in EX or Mint condition and use the right
> stylus to
> benefit.

I have a bunch of British Decca (London) "ffrr" classical 78s that sound
stupendous. Highs to roughly 15 KHz, good bass, and fairly quiet surfaces.
These are all from the late 1940s (post WWII).
>
> 1950s: Vinyl 45s and LPs arrived from 1949 on. A media war began.
> With the RIAA standards adopted in 1953 or so, the recordings then had
> to
> have a standard balance between bass and treble. From listening
> experience, late 78s in pristine condition played with good stylus
> really
> make your body vibrate and fell "live in the studio", really! The
> other day I
> listened to "Slow Train Blues" from Leathernecks on Mercury 78 from
> 1955,
> and I really felt that, because I cleaned the record and I evaluated
> it as EX or
> better. The downside of 78s is truly wear, and the loss in quality is
> more significant due to them playing on vintage equipment, with heavy
> styli
> or not always the right one.

More usual for 78's was being played with a WORN stylus. Most record players
in the 78 days used steel needles. They were meant to be replaced after each
play, but usually weren't. Often they weren't changed until the worn needle
started to change the color of the record from shiny black to a dull brown.
By then it was too late.

Second top would be of course the 45,
> then the
> LPs. Still analog with truly high fidelity if record is clean and
> played with a
> good stylus. The advantage is that vinyl is less fragile than 78s. I
> find the
> higher the speed the better the quality, because you cover more
> material
> per unit of time. CDs reissus of 50s performances will sound clearer,
> yes,
> but I feel I can't feel the vibrations, like I do with LPs or higher
> speed
> playbacks.

Can't feel the VIBRATIONS??????!!!!! I don't follow you. All sound is
"vibrations".
>
> 1960s: 78s stopped in 1960, so the top is now 45s, then LPs. Vinyl
> continues to provide high fidelity and makes you vibrate. 60's records
> have
> deep grooves, more distant, probably because the songs are shorter
> (average 2 to 3 minutes). Therefore they play loud and imperfections
> or
> defects are much less noticeable. Still getting copies in good or
> better,
> new condition, will give you the top in high fidelity.

??????????

> Original
> pressings are the
> way to go. If impossible, I would get a re-issue, provided it's been
> manufactured no later than 1980s, to make sure it's analog throughout
> the whole recording process from master tapes.
> An example: I preferred spending $325 on an original pressing of a
> 45rpm
> from Underworld "Go Away"/"Bound" on Regency R-979 than getting the
> 2007 re-issue from Garage Greats at $15. They pretend it's the same,
> but no. I listened to both, and the original truly makes me vibrate.

I still don't understand what you mean by "makes me vibrate"?

> The grooves
> on the reissue are not as deep, and I have never been able to
> determine what
> is their source and if digitalisation was involved. And my original
> pressing is
> only VG-, many clicks, but main thing is the overall quality is there!

Groove depth is irrelevant because it's the same for all stereo LPs, In fact,
the standard 45/45 system of cutting LPs dictates the depth of the groove
which is determined by the standard LP groove width and the isosceles
triangle formed by the groove width and the 90 degree angle of the two groove
walls. Groove PITCH (number of grooves per centimeter) is variable on LP
cutting, groove width and depth are not. All stereo records have the same
groove width and depth.

> 1970s: From mid 70s on, technology permitted to enhance sound
> clearness.
> Grooves are less deep, but I feel a wide range of sound effects can be
> detected, especially if I use headphones. Some record companies are
> better
> than others, but in general, all records allow me to enjoy a
> continuous
> analog signal I can feel with my body. I use a $50 Shure stylus, but I
> can
> imagine if someone uses a more high-end one he can get even more from
> his vinyl!

Again all stereo grooves are the same depth.

> 1980s: As for synthetizers, computer-assisted studio sound effects,
> robotic
> voices, etc... 1980s is the STATE OF THE ART decade, and I think it
> will
> remain 1st on the High Scores forever! Yes, simply because everything
> has
> been pressed on vinyl. I still find 45s are unbeatable because more
> material
> is covered per time unit, still LPs continue to bypass CD, even more
> MP3 by
> far. For example, I find Vertigo records make really good products.
> Listening
> to a Tears for Fears 45 is really a fantastic experience, I feel
> people who
> don't have vinyl are missing.
>
> 1990s to today: If processing is analog right from studio tapes to
> record
> pressing, consider it's the TOP like 80's. Otherwise, if any digital
> process is
> involved, you will probably won't feel the listening experience even
> if they
> try to make you believe it will by pressing it to vinyl.
>
> Portability: The real disadvantage of analog records is it's not
> portable. The
> solution I use is to record my vinyl onto Metal or CrO2 tapes and
> listening
> with my good'ole Walkman! Yes I lose a bit of quality with respect to
> the
> original records, but I find it's still way ahead iPods :-)
>
> Luc

Much of this seems to be nonsense. I'll give the poster the benefit of the
doubt here because his first language is obviously NOT English.