@ghasley +2

All the best,
Nonoise

@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 Nail on the head

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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. 

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

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

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.

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

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...

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.  

@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. 

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.

@dabel 

Pretty sure I have one moniker, but whatever.

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.

@othercrazycanuck,

I just wanted to buy some stuff.

”Canuck Audio Mart”

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

Thanks i appreciated that...

It is hard to read so clumsy english syntax asmine in my posts 😊😁😊 , i apologize to all people and stay very shameful about my posts especially after reading thinkers as great as writers as George Santayana :

«Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.»

In audio fanaticism the subjectivist are less sinful in their ignorance of technology than the objectivist fanatical aim which is to erase "perceived qualities" so meaningful they could be from the highest designing goal in favor of what is measured or to reduce them to pure "standardization" for mass market benefit ...Alas! mass market production is not high end craftmanship...Values could never be reduced to numbers..

Psycho-acoustic is precisely the study of these irreducible "musical" meanings for sure for the benefit of mass market production but not at the price of reducing these values to mere numbers...

Sound and music are arts based on science but not reducible to science, from the recording engineer using his EARS experience to choose the trade-off choices set and the more pleasurable and useful for the recording process and from the craftmanship of designer learning the last discoveries in psycho-acoustic and designing complex new more PLEASURABLE design for the benefit of the BIASED ears/brain system wishing for such to the listeners picking up the gear pieces of his choice to put them in the best acoustical conditions for him...All here is at the same time art and science, not one without the other...Only mass market productions so useful they can be is no more high art and high science but trivialized automatized art and science transformed now in useful techological tools or daily devices or trivial machines ...

But we can decide also to design A.I. regulating at the same time our ears and the sound dimension and bent ourselves totally to its ruling and renounce tomorrow our own creativity for an alleged illusory "perfection"... It is a society choice : the perfect hive "knowledge" or the imperfect learning humanity...

Science investigate mysteries so deep only naive mind think that these mysteries will be debunk as mysteries and reveal as trivialities ...Mathematician are in awe considering prime numbers distributions...No technological trick would reduce it to a trivial fact...

Euler one day discussing with the atheist Diderot claiming as evidence that GOD did not exist, fatigued by his credulous naivete as a thinker wrote his famous equation : e powered to pi and i +1=0... Diderot stay silent and departed... This equation dont prove at all that God exist, but before negating a SOURCE for the harmony of all things we must think a bit...That was Euler point...

In the same way the psycho-acoustic discoveries about the non linear working of the ears/brain iin their time dependant fashion made us think a bit before reducing all "qualities perceived" to Fourier method and measures as powerful they are for our technological benefit...

I want to publicly thank @mahgister for serving as the defacto and perhaps accidental Audiogon gatekeeper.

 

While I have neither the patience nor the time to read his rather lengthy posts, @mahgister is single handedly grinding Amir into submission. Each forum has a reason to exist, people choose the one they like that’s where they tend to visit. Since I’m a vacuum tube guy, I don’t need to visit ASR but certainly wish them no ill will.

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

I want to publicly thank @mahgister for serving as the defacto and perhaps accidental Audiogon gatekeeper.

As a new user, I was looking for a mute or block button to eliminate what I cannot interpret as anything but spam, with the same thing repeated over and over,  that 5-10 minutes of Google would inform is much ado about nothing:  https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,99371.0.html   If I can quickly figure out a few repeated points are much ado about nothing, I consider pages and pages of it spam.  I regret now falling down the rabbit hole when I just wanted to buy some stuff.

@mahgister posts are of the utmost importance & well worth my time. 

I want to publicly thank @mahgister for serving as the defacto and perhaps accidental Audiogon gatekeeper.

While I have neither the patience nor the time to read his rather lengthy posts, @mahgister is single handedly grinding Amir into submission. Each forum has a reason to exist, people choose the one they like that's where they tend to visit. Since I'm a vacuum tube guy, I don't need to visit ASR but certainly wish them no ill will.

It means that objectivists pretending that human sound perceived qualities may be only  illusions,   "good" or pleasant" as subjective qualities  being subjective experience are then considered "inexistant impressions... The business to please human ears is for them a fraud... All there is to say about "qualities" is reducible after many  blind test ELIMINATED all  false pretenses to a mere set of LINEAR measures.... And these linear measures are established  as the only standard for creating a good audio design even if any electronic circuits subjected to music bursts into it ,  instead of sine waves, can produce non predictable audible  results...As Van Maanen argue in this article

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. 

I guess i hit a nerve when I posted above that I believe he is not that much into music, but a techie first. @amir_asr , it is ok to be this way, I did not say there is anything wrong in this. 

Let's leave it at this, so that we both are not tempted to throw out ad hominem's, you enjoy a different aspect of this hobby than i do, but it's all good. IOW, we agree to disagree.

Did Amir change my mind? Maybe not Amir on his own, but ASR as a resource. I learned more about what was important for speakers, positioning, and acoustic treatment than I learned from all other sources combined. Not just some useful or useless rules of thumbs or calculators, but the how and the why. It is nice for once not to hope, guess, and randomly achieve success but to work towards it.

Reading through the many pages here, I lost interest at about 8, I also have learned a lot about audiophiles. I did not like what I learned.

I even went down a rabbit hole scientific paper after reading a tremendous claim.

"«Claims that differences in upstream components
(e.g., source or amplifier) can be heard even when the
system is bottle-necked by a mediocre downstream
component (e.g., speaker) shouldn’t seem surprising—
given that the NEP ( neurals excitation pattern) can resolve 1 part in 10 at the 40 power » Millind N. Kunchur"

This sounded very impressive. 10^40. An incredible amount of resolving power. Then it clicked in my brain and I related it to something I know well, images, and sight. Using the same reasoning as the author of that paper, the eye has 6,000,000 photo sites, connected to nerves, and each is able to easily resolve 256 levels. Using the authors own reasoning, the eye can then resolve not just 1 part in 10 at the 40th power, but 1 part in 256, to the 6 millions power.  10^40 compared to 256^6000000. Remarkable!  "Lies, damn lies, and statistics".

Where did the OP go?  Disappeared pretty quick, then turned into the Amir show.

To the Moderator(s):  Given your task is not easy, could be time to close this thread.  That action would be a big help to Amir, since he previously mentioned having a huge backlog of items to measure.  Clearly, Amir is spending too much time here trying to convert the great unwashed mass of Audiogon audio-fools.    

@soundfield now you’re not answering his questions and addressing measurements for your speakers. Saying you feel sorry for his family is pretty low. Not a good look. 

Btw I was just kidding about the Blue Screen stuff. You know I post that just to see you unravel. Have you considered buying AVS to retroactively delete these classics of the real Amir, like you can on your ASR kingdom?

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/establishing-differences-by-the-10-volume-method.1136745/

The comparison was then conducted without knowing which input is which, sitting in front of the headphone amp and toggling back and forth. When necessary, I would go back and re-listen. Once I found which one sounded worse, I would then repeat the exercise by randomizing the inputs and seeing if I could still identify which one was worse. My success rate was 100% in the second test (i.e. could always verify that the first result was not by chance). This testing was repeated a number of times comparing the different sources against each other and the ML.
I did not level match anything. However, once I found one source was worse than the other, I would then turn up the volume to counter any effect there. Indeed, doing so would close the gap some but it never changed the outcome. Note that the elevated level clearly made that source sound louder than the other. So the advantage was put on the losing side.

Hope everyone had a happy 4th spending time with friends and family, celebrating our independence.

amir_asr           07-04-2023 at 01:10pm 

amir_asr             07-04-2023 at 01:25pm 

amir_asr             07-04-2023 at 01:32pm

amir_asr             07-04-2023 at 01:41pm 

amir_asr             07-04-2023 at 01:50pm

amir_asr              07-04-2023 at 05:23pm

amir_asr              07-04-2023 at 05:27pm 

amir_asr             07-04-2023 at 05:41pm

amir_asr              07-04-2023 at 05:55pm

amir_asr              07-04-2023 at 07:10pm

amir_asr             07-04-2023 at 07:20pm

amir_asr             07-04-2023 at 07:23pm

amir_asr             07-04-2023 at 08:03pm

amir_asr            07-04-2023 at 11:19pm

amir_asr            07-04-2023 at 11:23pm

amir_asr             07-04-2023 at 11:46pm

amir_asr             07-05-2023 at 02:55am

Wow, Amir, get help. Most of those posts were epics. This isn't healthy. The raving egomania is one thing, but I feel sorry for your family here now, on what should have been time spent with them on a fun day. Take it easy man, you can't save them all, especially when you need to look inward.

amir_asr

What you don't want to hear is how the technology really works.  You want to live in the Matrix.  The reality is too painful for you.   I get it.  Don't come to ASR.  It isn't the place for you. 

More ad hominem logical fallacy personal attacks from the guy who claims reason and science are on his side.

@amir_asr you wrote ’You talk about cables making a difference. I have tested a number of them and not just by measurements but performing null tests with music. The difference is nothing. Not a thing. The engineering says they shouldn’t make a difference and they don’t.’

Well, take any system and put all Nordost wires in it and than swap them with all Cardas wires and than tell me there is no difference.

The thing is, because of the quoted lines in post above, nobody who has any ’experience’ in building hi fi system will ever take you for serious (some may even think that you have a hearing problem)

I really do not mind what other people do or claim, it is a trivial subject after all. But, perhaps even if you have some good intentions or even if some of your tests have an actual meaning, you have 'shot your self in a foot' with such orthodox stand.

Do you think that different tubes or capacitators also ’sound’ the same?

@amir_asr 

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

BTW, you state that if a speaker measures poorly and sounds great, then the measurements are in fact what we need to be looking for and as a result are good? I submit that the measuring devices are simply not able to measure the very thing that makes the speaker sound great to the listeners ears, instead measuring aspects of the sound that do not correlate with what we hear. This is something that I know you will not accept as a possibility.

No, I don't take advice from Joe audiophile who has not conducted a single proper test to arrive at claims they make about sound fidelity.  I rather trust the people who have.  And those people who have literally dedicated their lives to this question have proven conclusively that what you said is wrong, dead wrong in majority of cases.  

Of course you want that to be true.  So that when you claim this speaker is heaven's give to mankind and measurements show it to have strong resonances and coloration, you don't look embarrassed.  The solution isn't to make up a new theory to fit your poor judgement.  The solution is to learn the science, realize how compelling it is, and start to invest your dollars that way.

I have now tested some 300 speakers.  And I measured all of them based on best the research has to offer as far as predicting listener preference.  You haven't done any of this, right?  My experience has proven in vast majority of the cases that a neutral speaker is the best speaker -- just like research predicts.

The notion that some speaker with screwed up frequency response where it colors the tonality of everything you play through it means we should change how we measure it is just absurd.  Sadly, you have many friends who look at the cost, size and brand of a speaker and convince yourself that it must sound great.

To be sure, some statement speakers bring incredibly capability as far as dynamics is concerned.  That aspect costs money and so is justified.  What is not is having a speaker tuned by some designer by ear with obvious flaws in its response.

Sadly ideas like yours keep these companies in business.  They love that you defend them and create FUD around proper measurements of their products.  You can do that but know that I am here to provide the transparency that they don't.  Smart companies will learn and start to follow the science as many of their competitors have.  Others will just sit there thinking everyone is like you.

As ASR has grown, so has importance of proper engineering and measurements.  This isn't a trend you kill by claiming we don't listen to music or we don't know how to measure.  All that does shows that you rather have your head in the sand that spend a minute learning something about audio.

This is the thing, I have run into many folk who are not that much into music, and as such their interest level in this hobby is minimal, at best.

Which couldn't be farther from truth for me.  I got into hi-fi in 1960s when I was barely a teenager.  I love music and aspire forever for perfection of its reproduction.

They like other aspects of sound reproduction, maybe they enjoy the technical aspect ( like the well known gear designer I referenced in a prior post, who hated music), or maybe they like the visual aspect of the gear, but the actual reproduction of music and the ability of the gear to get us as close to possible to what we hear as ’live’ is not something they truly value.

I don't know anyone like this.  Every audiophile regardless of which camp they are in, share the love of music with interest in audio hardware.

It is my belief that you are a techie first, second and foremost...and that music really is not that high on your list, you just like the science. Maybe i am wrong about you, but to me ( as a musician and an a’phile), your ASR forum is one of the last places I would want to be, because the folk that seem to post there are absolutely into the tech side-- and really not the music.

Your belief is an insult and attempt at misdirection.  The largest thread on ASR Forum is about music we enjoy: 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-are-we-listening-to-right-now.40/

It has *930* pages currently.  It is linked to from the home page as a feature.  When I went to Pacific Audio Fest last week, one of my top goals was to gather what music was being played and share it with the membership.  Much new music was discovered and members went as far as creating playlists for them.

I assume you also like to listen music although I don't recall ever hearing you discuss that on either forums I have known for you.

What is different between us is that I am dedicated to understanding the technology that produces music.  This is enabled by me having professional experience as both an engineering and trained listener for literally decades in audio.  While you were perhaps spinning an LP, I was streaming music from cloud and reading research papers to advance my knowledge.  You sit there and hypothesize what makes a difference in sound reproduction.  I get to test literally thousands of pieces of new audio and get to talk to top luminaries in our field.

You talk about cables making a difference.  I have tested a number of them and not just by measurements but performing null tests with music.  The difference is nothing.  Not a thing.  The engineering says they shouldn't make a difference and they don't.

The fact that you hear a difference is because you are a human.  I too hear such "differences."  But just like your friend, I know that our hearing is variable and bi-directional.  Our brain can instruct our hearing system to dig in deep in music, or not.  Certainly when sitting back and enjoying music,  you are not doing that.  But when you compare things, you allow your brain to hear things differently in A vs B.  When that happens, you think there is a difference even when there is none.

We can prove the above just like you friend said: take away your eyes and knowledge.  But you didn't want to submit to that test, did you?  Fact is that you don't want to know.

Mike Lavigne whom you know, swore that he could easily hear the difference between his MIT Oracle cable and another one.  When tested blind against monster cable, he failed miserably to tell them apart.  

"in my mind i am not confident that i will ever be able to hear reliable differences between the Monster and the Opus to pass a Blind test. OTOH i am also not sure i won't be able to do it.""

Take away his eyes and all of sudden his ears don't do what he said they do.

You walk around claiming that some knowledge of music creation helps you with magical powers when it comes to sound reproduction.  That against incredible body of audio science and engineering, you know better.  Well fine.  Do the blind test with your friend and repeat 10 times and see if you can get 9 out of 10 right.  If you are unwilling or can't pass the test, then please spare the insults that those of us who believe in audio science somehow don't enjoy music.  

Really, I expected more from you.  Much more.

@amir_asr You remind me a little of a very good friend of mine who is a highly respected mechanical engineer. My friend is 100% certain that all cables sound exactly the same, and that there is absolutely no reason to spend money on power cables that are anything beyond a certain gauge necessary to supply enough current. I have had him over to listen to my system and to tell me if he can hear differences when I swap in cables. My friend tells me that he can, but these things are all due to his poor memory of the sound before and after, plus he believes that only a ’blind’ test would allow him to state that there are no differences.

This is the thing, I have run into many folk who are not that much into music, and as such their interest level in this hobby is minimal, at best. They like other aspects of sound reproduction, maybe they enjoy the technical aspect ( like the well known gear designer I referenced in a prior post, who hated music), or maybe they like the visual aspect of the gear, but the actual reproduction of music and the ability of the gear to get us as close to possible to what we hear as ’live’ is not something they truly value. It is my belief that you are a techie first, second and foremost...and that music really is not that high on your list, you just like the science. Maybe i am wrong about you, but to me ( as a musician and an a’phile), your ASR forum is one of the last places I would want to be, because the folk that seem to post there are absolutely into the tech side-- and really not the music.

BTW, you state that if a speaker measures poorly and sounds great, then the measurements are in fact what we need to be looking for and as a result are good? I submit that the measuring devices are simply not able to measure the very thing that makes the speaker sound great to the listeners ears, instead measuring aspects of the sound that do not correlate with what we hear. This is something that I know you will not accept as a possibility.

@amir_asr ​​​​​​

Double Blind tests *did* show amplifiers to sound different 

Do you believe the same about cables? 

@soundfield you heard the man. Show us some measurements. It is odd I couldnt find any checking now. 

To be fair to both of you, you both are to me, the worst that audio has to offer. Neither of you have provided answers. 

@amir_asr still hasn't answered why he closed the thread. AJ needs to post some proof his speakers are worthy of ASR. LOL

@amir_asr Then what is @soundfield talking about when he says you have never participated in a blind test outside of your own?

First thing you want to learn that nothing AJ tells you is the truth unless you verify it yourself. I don't know anyone who sacrifices the truth to serve his agenda more than him.  And his agenda is that nothing in audio makes a difference other than I guess speakers.  He used to walk the halls of forums and stomp on you repeatedly if you dared to say otherwise.  I came into the picture and he repeated the same.  The problem for him was that I am a professionally trained listener in addition to knowing the technology whereas he is none of that.

He would challenge me on audibility and I would routinely show him that with tests put forward around that time that his assertions were completely wrong.  That I could, in computerized automated double blind tests, I could pass them.  That would cause him to blow a fuse and accuse me of teaching.  Those accusations were as empty as his inaudibility claims.  I explain this in detail in the video I post above.  Here it is with the timestamp:

https://youtu.be/0KX2yk-9ygk?t=1561

Above I show how you cannot just edit the output of these ABX programs due to cryptographic hash in the newer version.  He also accuses me of watching an analyzer while performing the test.  This is completely silly as real-time analyzer is not going to let you pass many of these tests such as the high-res one where countermeasures are in there to assure that very thing.

Bottom line, he likes to create FUD around anyone who can create these tests as to claim there is not ever any audible difference in audio no matter what.  Pass a test like this and you must be a cheater.  Well, no, he is the one that is the problem because there are reasons why one can pass these tests and not everything presents an inaudible difference.

Mind you, AJ himself has never taken a single test.  He has no training or again, knowledge of technology. So I can see why it is miraculous to him that someone can pass these tests.  But that is his problem, not mine.

BTW, I am not the only one passing these tests.  The late Arny Krueger and friends created an ABX test of amplifiers showing them to have audible differences.  

Double Blind tests *did* show amplifiers to sound different

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/double-blind-tests-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/

If you don't know Anry, he was a staunch objectivists who like AJ, believed you all are wrong about hearing any differences between just about anything.  Kind of like AJ but less ruthless.

Bottom line, don't listen to AJ.  There is a reason I threw him out of ASR even though he claims to be a hardcore objectivist.  See how he doesn't even post measurements of his speakers.  When facts go against his stance, he all of a sudden pretends facts don't matter.

i've worn out my scroll down button... damn

I post this video before on what it means to get trained.  In there, I show how I passed a test of high-res vs 16 bit.  Something you can learn how to do and bust the theory of people who say everything sounds the same:

https://youtu.be/0KX2yk-9ygk

@kevn 

@amir_asr  - hi there amir, thank you for your participation in audiogon, and your extensive replies. I have a question that is very important to me to ask, and I hope you will find my request in the sea of responses this thread has become. There is a pretty basic test I found on the internet, of listening ability based on two different digitally configured formats, one in a higher resolution. Here is the said link -

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

Thank you for kind words.  I am not at all a fan of this kind of test.  They are usually designed by people who want to get a "no, there is no difference" answer.

The proper way would tell you this is the high resolution file and CD one.  Then you are presented with a randomized test to identify the samples against those two versions.  What this does is enable you to go through a training phase where in sighted listening, you can work to learn the difference if they exist.  Once there, then you can take the blinded version.  Such training is highly important and part of any protocol for such tests such as international ITU standard BS1116:

"Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems"

"4.1 Familiarization or training phase

Prior to formal grading, subjects must be allowed to become thoroughly familiar with the test facilities, the test environment, the grading process, the grading scales and the methods of their use. Subjects should also become thoroughly familiar with the artefacts under study. For the most sensitive tests they should be exposed to all the material they will be grading later in the formal grading sessions. During familiarization or training, subjects should be preferably together in groups (say, consisting of three subjects), so that they can interact freely and discuss the artefacts they detect with each other."

The reason for this is that if there are any potentially audible issues, we want to find them.  We don't disadvantage the listeners by throwing two samples and so "go."  There is no way to get trained this way as you don't know which sample is which.

Now, if our goal is to challenge someone saying they can tell the difference between high-res and CD in their sleep, then sure, you can run this kind of test.  But you better not run and declare there are no audible differences. There can very well be and you will be missing it in this type of testing.

@yowser @laoman He reminds me of a lot of people with NPD, hopefully this will serve as a testament to not support his "cause." He thinks he is the second coming. I think he is now using this thread to spread the gospel of ASR. Hope it gets to 1,000 posts so people know who he is.

Like I said before religion and science can co-exist bolstering one another. So much we don’t know. I am really glad I don’t fall in either camp of subjective or objective. I can be both or either.

yowser

"You go @amir_asr ! Taking em down like John Wick!"

Do you really think so Yowser? I think he has made a complete fool of himself. Perhaps you did not read the thread and notice his evasions and gaslighting.
Actually on reflection, you are correct. John Wick is a fictional character and most of Amir's replies resemble fiction.