Yep, for some a case of why use 10 names when a 1000 names will do.

@othercrazycanuck,

I just wanted to buy some stuff.

”Canuck Audio Mart”

What sticks out to me about the subjective/objective thing is things like the Magnepan LRS speakers which I and many others have and love yet measure poorly on ASR.   Are things like image size and room reflection dynamics of dipoles etc things that can be measured.   Can we show some objective measured thing that explains why many like the Maggies.   I think this is where the measurement approach fails.

@dabel 

Pretty sure I have one moniker, but whatever.

ghasley

@mahgister is single handedly grinding Amir into submission.

It's true. By being consistent in his thinking and by always being polite, @mahgister has allowed Amir to display his true self.

Credit is also due to @soundfield, for his compendium of Amir's manic posting activity.

@cleeds seriously? Soundfield has been so passive aggressive. Neither has responded to the other. I’ve seen a lot of true colors I don’t like. 

Where this distinction between objectivist and subjectivist come from in audio and why there is now a complete DIVISION ?

it come not from science but from the efforts by technology and audio market , divided about the GEAR marketing PUBLICITY complementary strategies: is our piece of gear the best well measured by technology, or is this piece of gear the best loved one by all listeners ?

Well, I have great news for you: we at ASR use science for both because they are actually quite interrelated.  Science is our friend and not our enemy as is the case for subjectivsts who care about nothing but "what my ears tell me."  

Back in 1967 a PhD graduate of Imperial College in UK with specializing in psychoacoustics named Dr. Floyd Toole joined the new National Research Council in Canada to investigate what made a speaker more appealing to listeners than another.  At that time, it was thought that everyone was different in their preference so there was room to build any and all speakers with whatever response.

He organized controlled blind tests and tested multiple speakers against each other.  You know what popped out?  That there was strong commonality in what listeners preferred.  With no reference to what is "real," listeners agreed with what was good sound and what wasn't.  That this was no wild west.

What was even  more fascinating was that measurements could, to a high degree explain and predict listener preference!   That a speaker which had flat on-axis and smooth off-axis correlated quite well with listener preference. 

The above was quite reassuring.  That even in absence of a reference, we prefer an uncolored sound.  The coloration is obvious when viewed in a special set of measurements called Spinorama.  And reflected in US ANSI CEA/CTA-2034 standard.

Dr. Toole has risen to the level of top luminary in audio science for his incredible contribution to the field of sound reproduction rooms.  His work (and that of his team) have hugely impacted how speaker are designed.  Look at the response of this Genelec 8361A for example:

See the comments about flat on axis and excellent directivity?  That is complying with this research.  In case you don't know who Genelec is, they are the top 2 or 3 brands in studio monitors (and likely the largest).  Here is their German competitor, Neumann in the form of KH150:

See the similarity in the form of flat on-axis and controlled directivity?

These companies are no joke.  The know the science and follow it.  They know that a neutral measuring speaker is the right approach.

We are here due to generosity of Dr. Toole and his team in publishing everything they found in peer reviewed journals of ASA and AES.  On the latter, AES bestowed the title of AES Fellow upon Dr. Toole.  From this bio:

 Dr. Toole’s research focused primarily on the acoustics and psychoacoustics of sound reproduction. Most notably, he established methods for subjective and objective evaluations which have been used to clarify the relationships between technical measurements of loudspeakers and listeners’ perceptions. All of this work was directed to improving engineering measurements, objectives for loudspeaker design and production control, and techniques for reducing variability at the loudspeaker/room/listener interface. For a papers on these subjects he received the Audio Engineering Society (AES) Publications Award in 1988 and, with Sean Olive, another in 1990.

So no, there is no dichotomy as you state it: " is our piece of gear the best well measured by technology, or is this piece of gear the best loved one by all listeners."  Maybe not "all" but we know how to please vast majority of listeners with speaker measurements as a tool to predict that.

Now, if you haven't been exposed to this science -- and i take it that you have not with that commentary -- I can see why this would be all a surprise.  So I suggest getting started by buying Dr. Toole's book and really getting educated in science of audio and preference:

Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents)

It costs only $60 and will give an education that a million forum posts won't.  I suggest you put down those two silly papers on FFT which do nothing but confuse you and start reading this book.

We at ASR follow this science because we not only understand it, but also experienced it.  I have attended the double blind test of speakers not once but twice at Harman.  Dr. Toole is a personal friend and teacher.  People who buy speakers like I show above have incredibly positive experience and satisfaction.  

Attack on person , or insults discredited any rational arguments value...

I apologized to Amir when i was tempted to do so confusing him and his sincere gentlemanship in discussion with some zealots around him,...

I despise those who resort to insults because it undermine the the points under discussion... These points are not personal matter... They are philosophical debate of our times...

I learned a lot discussing rationally with Amir... I thank him for that...

And Amir keeps proselytizing while avoiding any real questioning. Don’t let him get the last word. He’s only here to pump asr. We get that you’re science based

amir_asr

What you describing is a person like @soundfield.  He is the one that will ridicule you at mere mention that anything sounds different in audio.  He has no use for your ears or any possibility that technically something may have an audible effect.

I on the other hand ...

Ad hominem logical fallacy. Personal attack.

What sticks out to me about the subjective/objective thing is things like the Magnepan LRS speakers which I and many others have and love yet measure poorly on ASR.   Are things like image size and room reflection dynamics of dipoles etc things that can be measured.   Can we show some objective measured thing that explains why many like the Maggies.   I think this is where the measurement approach fails.

The LRS was both measured by me and by Workwyn for AudioExpress with the same results.  Speaker beams heavily creating a very narrow listing spot.  In addition, it has little to no bass.  These are facts enforced by physics of speaker design and there is nothing you can do about it:

The appeal of these dipole speakers is that they are basically effect boxes.  The back reflections create a spacious sound that many audiophiles relish.  I am not a fan because it overlays the same effect on every kind of music.  This becomes tiring to me as I don't expect rock/pop tracks to sound this way.  Ditto for the tall image their portray.

But again, I know the appeal.  I know that with a ton of fiddling and room manipulation you can improve their sound.  So no need to search for such proof.  If you want a specialized speaker, they can be a good choice.

@amir_asr stop spamming to cover up your lack of accountability. Desperately seeking attention. 

In building my own horn speakers, I had no luck in achieving a satisfying sound until I paid attention to the science Amir is referencing. I should note that I was aware of this science from the beginning of the project and believed in it, but had some conceptual errors about how to get there, so the initial result was way off the mark. I finally realized that there was simply no way to adjust my way out of the physical arrangement choices I had made. I had to choose a different tweeter horn flare and position it differently, and work on the crossover setting until I could get a smooth on and off axis response down to below 600Hz. I didn’t have access to a Spinorama machine so it took a lot of painstaking measurements on and off axis, setting the time window in REW short enough to reasonably simulate an anechoic space, and carefully measuring the placement of the microphone. It’s amazing to hear something finally so satisfying when before I was questioning the capabilities of the drivers, cabinets, room and electronics to have the capability to get there. The science really did lead me much closer to where I wanted to be, although taste still comes in to play. I had to tweak the on-axis measured response slightly by ear but I eventually reached a sound quality that I was starting to believe might be impossible without spending a lot more on electronics and drivers. Even thought I knew it was a problem, the poor off axis response sounded bad enough that it made me doubt the quality of components that weren’t at fault. I can't imagine the rabbit's hole I would have went down trying to correct the issue by trying different amps, DACs, and cables before getting that sorted out. 

It would seem that Amir is in fact a perfect example of the type of hobbyist that you describe here. A pure objectivist, who simply will not trust his ears regardless of what they are telling him, relying instead on what his vaunted measurements are showing. 

No.  Not true at all.  What you describing is a person like @soundfield.  He is the one that will ridicule you at mere mention that anything sounds different in audio.  He has no use for your ears or any possibility that technically something may have an audible effect.

Hey Amir, only one of us is an ex MS millionaire, I won't be able to afford it if you start charging me rent living inside your head!

Ok, so which is it, I have zero knowledge and do no measurements etc,like you claimed before, or all I do is measure and no listening like above??

Is there something called bipolar egomania? So essentially, these were based purely on measurements (which is actually true), but since I don't listen, got lucky that others are gobsmacked by the sound?

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2019/03/17/florida-2019-soundfield-audio-vac-nad-big-sound-or-little-you-decide/

https://www.soundstageglobal.com/index.php/shows-events/florida-international-audio-expo-2023-tampa-usa/1060-fiae-2023-soundfield-audio-obelisk-t710-the-most-ambitious-loudspeaker-system-at-the-show

Is it possible that I do know what I'm doing and you have no clue what you're talking about? How many speakers did you measure prior to getting the NFS a year or 2 ago?

Where this distinction between objectivist and subjectivist come from in audio and why there is now a complete DIVISION ?

it come not from science but from the efforts by technology and audio market , divided about the GEAR marketing PUBLICITY complementary strategies: is our piece of gear the best well measured by technology, or is this piece of gear the best loved one by all listeners ?

Well, I have great news for you: we at ASR use science for both because they are actually quite interrelated. Science is our friend and not our enemy as is the case for subjectivsts who care about nothing but "what my ears tell me."

Back in 1967 a PhD graduate of Imperial College in UK with specializing in psychoacoustics named Dr. Floyd Toole joined the new National Research Council in Canada to investigate what made a speaker more appealing to listeners than another. At that time, it was thought that everyone was different in their preference so there was room to build any and all speakers with whatever response.

He organized controlled blind tests and tested multiple speakers against each other. You know what popped out? That there was strong commonality in what listeners preferred. With no reference to what is "real," listeners agreed with what was good sound and what wasn’t. That this was no wild west.

What was even more fascinating was that measurements could, to a high degree explain and predict listener preference! That a speaker which had flat on-axis and smooth off-axis correlated quite well with listener preference.

The above was quite reassuring. That even in absence of a reference, we prefer an uncolored sound. The coloration is obvious when viewed in a special set of measurements called Spinorama. And reflected in US ANSI CEA/CTA-2034 standard.

Dr. Toole has risen to the level of top luminary in audio science for his incredible contribution to the field of sound reproduction rooms. His work (and that of his team) have hugely impacted how speaker are designed. Look at the response of this Genelec 8361A for example:

See the comments about flat on axis and excellent directivity? That is complying with this research. In case you don’t know who Genelec is, they are the top 2 or 3 brands in studio monitors (and likely the largest). Here is their German competitor, Neumann in the form of KH150:

See the similarity in the form of flat on-axis and controlled directivity?

These companies are no joke. The know the science and follow it. They know that a neutral measuring speaker is the right approach.

We are here due to generosity of Dr. Toole and his team in publishing everything they found in peer reviewed journals of ASA and AES. On the latter, AES bestowed the title of AES Fellow upon Dr. Toole. From this bio:

Dr. Toole’s research focused primarily on the acoustics and psychoacoustics of sound reproduction. Most notably, he established methods for subjective and objective evaluations which have been used to clarify the relationships between technical measurements of loudspeakers and listeners’ perceptions. All of this work was directed to improving engineering measurements, objectives for loudspeaker design and production control, and techniques for reducing variability at the loudspeaker/room/listener interface. For a papers on these subjects he received the Audio Engineering Society (AES) Publications Award in 1988 and, with Sean Olive, another in 1990.

So no, there is no dichotomy as you state it: " is our piece of gear the best well measured by technology, or is this piece of gear the best loved one by all listeners." Maybe not "all" but we know how to please vast majority of listeners with speaker measurements as a tool to predict that.

Now, if you haven’t been exposed to this science -- and i take it that you have not with that commentary -- I can see why this would be all a surprise. So I suggest getting started by buying Dr. Toole’s book and really getting educated in science of audio and preference:

Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents)

It costs only $60 and will give an education that a million forum posts won’t. I suggest you put down those two silly papers on FFT which do nothing but confuse you and start reading this book.

We at ASR follow this science because we not only understand it, but also experienced it. I have attended the double blind test of speakers not once but twice at Harman. Dr. Toole is a personal friend and teacher. People who buy speakers like I show above have incredibly positive experience and satisfaction.

I have concluded from experience that there are things that I cannot hear. I don't hear differences in dacs or digital cables, or power conditioners. I don't hear jitter issues from digital sources, network switches and cables, or streaming devices, or distortion issues associated with feedback in solid state amplifiers. I don't hear the special magic in analog sources such as tape or vinyl, nor do I detect euphoric distortion from tube amplifiers. I don't hear differences from power cables or other expensive cables.

I'm not going to argue about whether other people hear these things or not. I only know with confidence that I can't hear them. 

What I'll claim I can hear clearly is shortcomings with the phantom center image when using only two speakers for stereo playback. Others claim they hear no problem with this in a properly setup system, and feel that it actually sounds superior to multi-channel systems or setups that employ some kind of inter-aural crosstalk reduction. I believe them. It's hard for me to fathom but they say they don't hear a problem even though they can hear all kinds of things I can't hear. 

I've been in a lot of showrooms over the years, several HiFi trade shows, and listened to high end systems in people's homes. To my ears, straight stereo two speaker playback ALWAYS has a particular sound to it, a degradation of the tone of center panned sounds that's unmistakable. It's a particular effect, and like Amir says about dipole planar speakers, I find it tiresome. 

So that's my problem. I have to deal with it. Those who don't hear it as a problem are lucky because they only have to buy two speakers and don't have to find a way to do any up-mixing. On the other hand, I'm lucky because I don't have to fuss over cables, dacs, streamers, power supplies and analog sources. 

It is like Amir and AJ own warring gas stations and throw matches at the other person. Neither of you answer. 

@soundfield I do not see measurements.

This whole thread is like watching a couple of old, slightly obese guys at a flea market arguing over whether the AMC Gremlin was a better car than the Pontiac Aztec.....either may or may not be right but it just isn't relevant.

@ghasley Nail on the head

@asctim 

To my ears, straight stereo two speaker playback ALWAYS has a particular sound to it, a degradation of the tone of center panned sounds that's unmistakable. It's a particular effect, and like Amir says about dipole planar speakers, I find it tiresome. 

Yes, there are millions of systems like this.

I particularly recall hearing the Quad 2805s and feeling the same...and yet, some folks love these speakers.

Or could it also be that stereo recording itself is in some way a dilution of the textures of a recording?

There are certainly many recordings where I favour the mono version for exactly this reason.

@ghasley +2

All the best,
Nonoise

To my ears, straight stereo two speaker playback ALWAYS has a particular sound to it, a degradation of the tone of center panned sounds that's unmistakable.

The science behind this is very clear and long known. https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9136

Those who don't hear it as a problem are lucky because they only have to buy two speakers and don't have to find a way to do any up-mixing.

Ironically Amir is vehemently anti-upmixing. See this thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-do-listeners-prefer-for-small-room-acoustics.286/page-7#post-9703

But he went completely mute when he hero Toole made clear he does just that https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/effect-of-loudspeaker-directivity-compared-with-in-room-measurements.21508/page-14#post-1031803

Not a peep out of him about that ;-).

I haven't done a HiFi Show demo sans decorrelated rears in at least 7 years.

Keep deflecting @soundfield  

you both look like Tooles

@amir_asr ,

The LRS was both measured by me and by Workwyn for AudioExpress with the same results.  Speaker beams heavily creating a very narrow listing spot.  In addition, it has little to no bass.  These are facts enforced by physics of speaker design and there is nothing you can do about it:

Did you post the correct graph?  I went and looked at the review. This is the vertical directivity graph. I think it should be narrow because it is a line speaker. This would be a feature not a fault. On your website, the horizontal directivity seems wide, but I may be reading it wrong.

Ironically Amir is vehemently anti-upmixing. See this thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-do-listeners-prefer-for-small-room-acoustics.286/page-7#post-9703

But he went completely mute when he hero Toole made clear he does just that https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/effect-of-loudspeaker-directivity-compared-with-in-room-measurements.21508/page-14#post-1031803

Not a peep out of him about that ;-).

I don't know how you missed my response on the next page:

"The first time I tried Lexicon Logic 7, I found it captivating. Sat there enjoying a few CDs. But then the effect grew old and constant errors in how it created multi-channel from stereo became too much so I did not go back to it. It is definitely no replacement for true multi-channel as Carl states."

That is not at all "vehemently anti-upmixing." I tried it and it grew old. And this was with Lexicon algorithm.  Perhaps Aura3D is better (see below).

As to Dr. Toole, this is what he said at that link:

"The only "faux" multichannel that I have ever condoned is upmixing, and the success of that depends on the nature of the stereo mix and of the particular upmixer - there are several quite different options. None that I have experienced are gratifying for all recordings, but I now regularly use the Auto3D upmixer."

I quoted the key section for you where he acknowledges it is not for all recordings.  He listens to a lot more classical music than I do.  I listen to much more modern music.  That makes a difference as to whether you like the "faux" upmixing or not.

Note that our multichannel room is strictly for watching movies.  It is a window-less room and I don't enjoy sitting there for music consumption.  My main music system is in a different place that doesn't make it easy to set up multichannel. The content I listen to doesn't come in multichannel so again, it is moot.

Did you post the correct graph?  

I did.  Vertical directivity was a problem for me as any change in how I was sitting would impact tonality.  See my listening expressions from the review:

I first positioned the panel right at me and started to play. What I heard sounded like it was coming from a deep well! I then dropped the little rings on the stand and repositioned the speaker as you see in the picture (less toed in). That made a big difference and for a few clips I enjoyed decent sound. Then I played something with bass and it was as if the speaker was drowned under water again. It wasn't just absence of deep bass but rather, quietness on top of that.

This whole thread is like watching a couple of old, slightly obese guys at a flea market arguing over whether the AMC Gremlin was a better car than the Pontiac Aztec.....either may or may not be right but it just isn't relevant.

Slightly obese??? I am not obese at all.  See me in the middle in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Z0W_KlHOT5M

The main point was about the tools used to takes measurement, all applications of Fourier theory and his fundamental linear nature and his time independant basic nature...

The ears did not work in a linear manner at all and live in a time dyssimetric dimension for our fundamental perception...

All the measures taken about amplifiers and dac are tools of a linear nature in the frequencies domain basically... But How to use them to serve the non linear nature of our hearing abilities an his time dependant nature ?

We must not use Fourier analysis then with a naive idea about distortions coming from components and complete ignorance about the way human hearing perceive them...I cannot cite him about distortions it will be too long post...

Dr. Hans Van Maanen explain it better that i can here...

Here is a gist of his ideas :

«The temporal resolution of human hearing is at least an order of magnitude better than derived
from its frequency response, so it is very likely that especially metal percussion instruments

larger the contribution of artefacts to its output signal will be. As several of these cannot be detected using continuous sine waves, these differences may not show up in the specifications.
This can explain why amplifiers with similar specifications give significant differences in the perceived quality.

Then Any ASR review of amplifiers will not be a warrant of "musicality"... Then Keep your ears open... Measures and especially some limited set of measures dont tell all the story there is to tell....

Thanks Amir for the falsification of the Gear market specs ...

Keep for yourself your theory that all there is to say about sound qualities is relative to your limited set of measures...

Subjectivist are not in the obligation to stay ignorant about measures and hearing theories and fact...

Objectivist must learn psycho-acoustic science behind technology and develop humility....

By the way i am perhaps the only one posting deep scientific reason why Amir ideology about hearings and all perceptive "musical" qualities correlated by him to a narrow set of linear measures is just that : a marketing ploy, an ideology but not science...

Amir do a great sercvice by informing us , i thank him for that many times, the problem is that he really think the information given is absolute truth about perceived experiences musical qualities...They are not... And there is no more and no less deluded subjectivists than there is deluded objectivists... Psycho-acoustic is a too deep matter to be reduced to a limited set of linear measure on the gear based on Fourier theory or to be based only on gear  fetichism ...

@amir_asr : 😂😂😂. All of the sudden, the author of that YouTube video will get millions of views now from your ~ 1.2 Billion followers who view you like Messiah. They will wonder, where the sudden fame came from? 😂

@mahgister . Is there value in repeating the same arguments with just different wording? I posted a link that addresses this fourier limit that you raised. I am on holidays and it is too hot to be outside, so the rabbit hole was a good chance to cool off. The people in that link obviously know this topic very well. It turns out this was not an earth shattering discovery but something that was already known. This is not the forum for a long dissertation on sampling theory and fourier analysis, and I am probably too rusty for it, but some obvious flaws in your though process are evident, even one as simple as a song, recorded in digital has an analog filter to limit bandwidth and a window function to ensure it conforms to the requirement of Nyquist not unlike I am 100’s of other applications where similar processing is used and everything works just fine.

Appreciate you are trying to discover flaws in measurements, but a humble approach says that very smart people came up with these processes and they are unlikely to have missed, for many decades, obvious issues. If there is any consensus on higher bandwidth being audible? I can’t find it. Maybe I am wrong, but that seems to put a truck sized hole in an argument about "missed transients".

We can simplify it. It does not require a full dissertation that is above the heads of everyone here nor does it require a PhD. While down the rabbit hole, I discovered these experiments were done with basic audio DACs. Not only that, but I found someone did a similar experiment (fourier limit) and used MP3 files. If you can do the experiment with MP3 files, I think any claim you are trying to make is wrong.

I am climbing out of the rabbit hole, but I think this horse has been beat enough. It is dead and beyond reviving.

Cin Dyment aka @othercrazycanuck : you couldn’t help it, could you? As soon as you saw Amir creating his own thread here you immediately rejoined Audiogon, with yet another username. Your 18th if I am not mistaken, but who’s counting…

"I use science". The ostensibly invincible intellectual shield.

@mahgister ,

You exude much hostility when being challenged. I will take my leave of you now and return to my previous belief of spam.

I am not perfect... But you are right and i apologize...

But think in my shoes... you dont read my posts at all and you did not understand anything about my fundamental points...I reacted perhaps a bit rudely...

i apologize...

I wish you the best and bear no grudge... Thanks...

@mahgister ,

 

You exude much hostility when being challenged. I will take my leave of you now and return to my previous belief of spam.

Information Society … (ugh, the band).

"I use science". The ostensibly invincible intellectual shield.

Only if it is stated but not demonstrated.....

Keep for yourself your theory that all there is to say about sound qualities is relative to your limited set of measures...

I don't have to keep what I have not stated.

Objectivist must learn psycho-acoustic science behind technology and develop humility....

This knowledge used to be part of job function and responsibility. Getting it wrong would impact the fortunes of the company I worked for and myself.  Have you been similarly situated?  What is your level of knowledge of psychoacoustics on scale 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest?

• The common conclusion is that reproduction of sound from
20 Hz – 20 kHz with only the correct amplitude is completely
sufficient for sound reproduction, indistinguishable from the
original, but quite in conflict with the above mentioned
anecdotal findings and with what I hear.

Anecdotes and $5 will get you a cup of coffee....  Nothing in the research you are posting supports stuff like that.  There was no test of human perception of frequencies above 20 kHz.  Or impact of eliminating such.  This is all stuff you are reading into the research which has no justification whatsoever.

The Fourier theory is very powerful and useful for audio, but it can only be applied correctly when the conditions imposed are fulfilled.

Fourier theory is not part of the design of any amplifier. Nor is Fourier theory what the paper is about that you keep posting. The Fourier theorem as it is more properly called, is a mathematical proof. It used in some signal processing domains such as lossy audio compression. It has no applicability to an analog amplifier. Such an amplifier is not performing any transform from analog to digital or vice versa.

You are intermingling topics because of lack of understanding of the underlying concepts.

The research simply says that for a special class of signals our hearing system seems to be able to detect their frequency and timing more accurately than the uncertainty principal in Fourier predicts. It has no relevance to topic of audio measurements, or function of analog audio equipment. Extrapolating otherwise shows that even the most basic concepts here are not understood.

And again, much of our audio measurements is done in time domain with no usage of Fourier transforms. They are not bound by any uncertainty principal because they don’t attempt to quantify either time or frequency. When we use Fourier transforms, it is to decompose a signal, i.e. its distortion products. We don’t intend or rely on its frequency resolution.

@amir_asr Gremlin or Aztec? The world wants to know! You should post your answer on your site though.

@amir_asr  - little reminder, amir : )

Thank you for your quick response, amir. I hope you won’t mind if I can clarify an issue (I realise how many queries you are attempting to answer at the same time, so I fully understand if you missed this) - 

My question was if you could advise if the test was a good way to gauge listening ability, but your reply involved "Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems", training and learning.

My question did not have anything to do with a method, or training, or audio systems, just whether the test, even if intended to have participants give a ‘no, there is no difference’ answer; only if you could advise if it was a good starting point to gauge ‘listening ability’.

The first response you gave me the impression you had already decided the test was not good for training or or learning. The test was certainly not posturing as being anything other than a simple measure if an individual could hear the differences of resolution in the two files presented.

It seems to me, with the results I got from the twelve friends I asked, that the test, however basic, served its purpose. I wondered if you could advise if this simple test works well enough as a beginning to determine good listeners from bad listeners, all training aside.

Thanks again, and I look forward to your reply! 

In friendship. - kevin

Fourier theory is not part of the design of any amplifier. Nor is Fourier theory what the paper is about that you keep posting

I never said a such non sensical thing about Fourier being part of the material design of an amplifier... They are the background theory for the hearing based frequency theory... i always spoke myself about hearing theory and the impact on design QUALITATIVE INTERPRETATION and the predictive relation between perceived "musicality" of the gear and some sets of LINEAR measures IN THE MASS MARKET INDUSTRY which are not enough to predict "musicality" of the gear because the human hearings work non linearly in the time dependant domain Simple.... I only said that some set of measures are interpretated in the LINEAR context with Fourier theory as a frequency based Hearing theory in the background interpretative context instead of a time dependant theory...By the way going in the time domain with your measures interpreted in a linear context, DOES NOT MEANS YOU WORK IN THE TIME DEPENDANT DOMAIN of hearing theory...The CRUX is not the time domain symmetricality in itself ( laws of nature can be read mathematically in a time independant way ) but it non symmetrical direction, then time dependant one, in a non linear way for human EARS/brain workings..

And again, much of our audio measurements is done in time domain with no usage of Fourier transforms. They are not bound by any uncertainty principal because they don’t attempt to quantify either time or frequency. When we use Fourier transforms, it is to decompose a signal, i.e. its distortion products. We don’t intend or rely on its frequency resolution.

All your measures being interpretated linearly OUT OF THE SPECIFICS NEEDS from a hearing theory based on what MAagnasco and Oppenheim and Van Maanen asked for, cannot have then any concluding value for interpreting them as "good sound" in a psycho-acoustic sense and i a predictive way... A good standard design dont means a "musical" pleasurable sound quality... You then really means only "good sound" as an attribution in a mass marketing standardized designing sense of the words... ... What you call "good sound" then with your set of measures has nothing to do with real "perceived sound qualities" in a psycho-acoustic SUBJECTIVE sense.... Then objectivists claiming the opposite are wrong...If anyone claim the opposite then it is because someone want to IMPOSE what must be a "good sound" with a hearing theory which is linear and TIME INDEPENDANT...

But now we have no debate TOGETHER you said it very clearly : Your set of measures cannot be claimed as to have any PREDICTIVE PERCEIVED SOUND QUALITY VALUES out of the numbers revealing some aspect of distortions and jitter, etc ...The fact that you equate it with good sound QUALITIES is purely an abuse of words; you means good standard design... Then Probability of a good sound with no predictive attribute .. As you say you LISTEN with behind your head the measures biases you had taken BUT you submit yourself to blind test...perfect then...

Then i had no more point of disagreement with you... It is the objectivists around you reading your reviews who EXTRAPOLATE and ATTACK subjectivism claiming to some "musicality" and grow in a cult using some specialized set of measures as PREDICTIVE instead of being only : minimal or optimal standards with no predictive value for "musicality"...Which quality is "unreal" or "illusory" anyway for them ......You are more "neutral" than this circle around you and you do a job thats all... And effectively you cannot be faulted for the rudeness and wrong interpretations of others.. yOu stay silent and give your reviews... Anybody can interpret your verdict as predictive of "good sound" or not... It is up to them... And up to a blind test... 😊

Thanks for the discussion... I learned a lot... i am not qualified in any way, i am not an engineer, but i know how to read... And Hans Van Maanen is more than qualified here... I read his very simple and very clear articles among others.....magnasco and Oppenheim experiments are after 60 years the culmination of a trend growing in hearing theories : Human hearing must be based on an Ecological theory of hearing as exist an ecological theory of visual perception by J. J. Gibson and based on the AFFORDANCES given by natural sound analyased in a non linear way in the time dependant domain by the ears/brain... I suppose you know this book :

wikipedia:

«James Jerome Gibson (/ˈɡɪbsən/; January 27, 1904 – December 11, 1979) was an American psychologist and is considered to be one of the most important contributors to the field of visual perception. Gibson challenged the idea that the nervous system actively constructs conscious visual perception, and instead promoted ecological psychology, in which the mind directly perceives environmental stimuli without additional cognitive construction or processing.^{[1 »}

he wrote one of the most influential book about visual perception research in the century...

All my observations about the non linear and time dependant dimension of hearings and their future impact on gear design must be interpreted in  this book context ... Van Maanen use this hearing theory to design his amplifiers ande speakers... This is the reason why i used it...

Then no i am not qualified, J. J. Gibson and Magnasco and Oppenheim and Van Maanen are qualified more than necessary...

Keep for yourself your theory that all there is to say about sound qualities is relative to your limited set of measures...

I don’t have to keep what I have not stated.

@manuelguerrahr 

I can’t believe I have not received one darn response.

...probably because you are posting on the wrong thread AND this is a discussion forum rather than a sales forum.

@kevn 

Thank you for your quick response, amir. I hope you won’t mind if I can clarify an issue (I realise how many queries you are attempting to answer at the same time, so I fully understand if you missed this) - 

My question was if you could advise if the test was a good way to gauge listening ability, but your reply involved "Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems", training and learning.

My question did not have anything to do with a method, or training, or audio systems, just whether the test, even if intended to have participants give a ‘no, there is no difference’ answer; only if you could advise if it was a good starting point to gauge ‘listening ability’.

You have me at a disadvantage as I thought I clearly answered your question.  Once again, no, it is not a proper test so doesn't make for a good starting point or any starting point for that matter.

It reminds me of buying a Japanese learning CDs years ago at an airport.  It claimed full immersion and quick learning.  I start the lesson and first thing it wants to teach is the words for Horse and Jockey!  I am pretty sure that should not be the starting point to learn any new language unless you are into horses.  :)

But tell me what you concluded about the results of the tests you ran.  Who had good listening ability and why?

@mahgister 

Thanks for the discussion... I learned a lot... i am not qualified in any way, i am not an engineer, but i know how to read... And Hans Van Maanen is more than qualified here... I read his very simple and very clear articles among others

My pleasure.  You make a key point here.  Just like you, other audiophiles can read too.  So audio marketing people will throw big sounding technical words that often they even don't understand to then make a technical claim they don't have to prove.  Said audiophile draws inferences from everyday life and the sale is made. 

Cable maker says said wire needs 200 hour break in.  Audiophile remembers that cars used to have such break in periods and automatically believes that wires must also need the same.  

You should be skeptical of these claims when they are provided with no proof points, either in the form of measurements or controlled listening tests.  You have post repeatedly on topic yet you have not provided anything like this.  Reading your comments, and please forgive me for being blunt, it is very clear that you are not understanding the mathematical nature of the topic being discussed or its relevance to measurements or audio equipment performance.

To wit, you keep saying there is something wrong with all the measurements we run.  Well, yesterday I reviewed the Roksan Attessa streaming amplifier. Here is our dashboard including FFT on top right:

The Fourier transform is decomposing the innocent looking time domain scope measurement on the left and warning us that the power supply is generating a ton of hum and noise.  So much so that it is higher than the distortion the amplifier is producing!  Pure, voltage (time) domain analysis of noise showed the problem again:

Notice that it can't even clear the noise floor of 16 bit music at full power let alone at my reference 5 watts.

Are you going to claim that this is a well engineered amplifier and these measurements are not probative because you read a paper on Fourier uncertainty principle?   Before you say yes, let me tell you that the owner had heard this same amplifier at a dealer and distinctly detected hum in one channel.  He wanted to find out if this was a real problem with all units produced so purchased the new unit and had it drop shipped to me.  Measurements conclusively predict and prove what he heard.  Not only that, it pointed to where the fault in design is.

This amplifier had universally raving reviews online until mine came out.  Stereophile had measured it and found SNR that was much worse than that but swept it under the rug with politically correct language.  

My, again time domain, measurements also showed very audible spike when the unit is powered on and off:

Another own this morning post that he indeed hears those pops in his amplifier.

None of this was done to verify some spec.  No performance spec is provided by the company anyway.  

You paid $3,200 for an amplifier that is not as silent and clean as a $100 amplifier I have tested recently.  

You see the power of measurements to quantify audible issues?  You see how the theory you read in that one paper does not at all related to any of this?  You see how you should challenge the one designer to produce proper measurements of his amplifier and controlled listening tests showing some benefit in his design approach?

I have read the papers you keep quoting.  I will say once again, they have no bearing whatsoever on the topic we are discussion. Go ahead and quote where Oppenheim and Magnasco say anything about audio measurements being obsoleted by that experiment.  You won't find it.

@soundfield Where are your speaker measurements? 

@amir_asr Why did you close Erin's thread?