2. misc-audio
  3. 157436-20253

In Defense of Audiophiles, Bose, Pass, Toole and Science

I don’t know why I look at Audio Science Reviews equipment reviews, they usually make me bang my head against my desk. The claims they make of being scientific is pretty half-baked. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate measurements, and the time it takes to conduct them, along with insights into the causes, but judging all electronics based on 40+ year old measurements which have not really become closer to explaining human perception and enjoyment, they claim to be objective scientists. They are not. Let me tell you some of the people who are:

  1. Bose
  2. Harman
  3. Nelson Pass
  4. Floyd Toole


This may look like a weird list, but here is what all these have in common: They strive to link together human perception and enjoyment of a product to measurements. Each have taken a decidedly different, but very successful approach. They’ve each asked the question differently. I don’t always agree with the resulting products, but I can’t deny that their approach is market based and scientific.


Floyd Toole’s writing on room tuning, frequency response and EQ combines exact measurements with human perception, and as big a scientist as he is he remains skeptical of measurements, and with good reasons.


The process Nelson Pass uses is exactly right. His hypothesis is that a certain type of distortion, along with other important qualities, are what make for a great sounding amp, and lets face it, the process, and his effectiveness cannot be denied as not being scientific or financially successful. Far more scientific than designing or buying an amp based on THD% at 1 watt alone.


Bose is also very very scientific, but they come at the problem differently. Their question is: What is the least expensive to manufacture product we can make given what most consumers actually want to hear?" Does it work? They have 8,000 employees and approximately $4B in sales per Forbes:


https://www.forbes.com/companies/bose/#1926b3a81c46


Honestly, I don’t know how your average Bose product would measure, but you don’t get to these numbers without science. Assuming they measure poorly, doesn’t that mean measurements are all wrong?


The work Harman has done in getting listening panels together, and trying out different prototypes while adhering to previous science is also noteworthy. Most notably and recently with their testing of speaker dispersion which has resulted in the tweeter wave guides in the latest Revel speakers. They move science forward with each experiment, and then put that out into their products.


Regardless of the camp you fall into, crusty old measurements, perception measurements or individual iconoclast, we also must account for person to person variability. It’s been shown for instance that most people have poor sensitivity to phase shifts in speakers (like me), but if you are THAT person who has severe sensitivity to it, then all those studies don’t mean a thing.


My point is, let’s not define science as being purely in the domain of an oscilloscope. Science is defined by those who push the boundaries forward, and add to our understanding of human perception as well as electron behavior through a semi-conductor and air pressure in a room. If it’s frozen in 40 year old measurements, it’s not science, it's the worship of a dead icon.


Best,


E

erik_squires

Showing 8 responses by djones51

djones51
4,947 posts
 
I have read and watched Floyd Toole more than the others you posted.

How can science, a cold and calculating endeavor if ever there were one, help with delivering the emotions of great music? It is because, in the space between the performers and the audience, music exists as sound waves. Sound waves are physical entities, subject to physical laws, amenable to technical measurement and description and, in most important ways, predictable. The physical science of acoustics allows us to understand the behavior of sound waves as they travel from the musician to the listener, whether the performance is live or recorded.

The scientific method requires measurements and, in audio, we do two kinds: subjective and objective. Then we enter the domain of psychoacoustics, the study of relationships between physical sounds and the perceptions that result from them. Psychoacoustics allows us to understand and interpret measurements in ways that relate to what we hear. However, it is all based on the premise that human listeners agree on what is, and is not, good sound. Individual points of view are a part of human nature. They enrich our lives in countless ways. The world would be a boring place if we were all attracted to the same music, food, wine and people. A commonly expressed point of view is that sound also is “subjective”, that we all “hear differently”, and therefore not all of us prefer the same loudspeakers, amplifiers, etc. It is also alleged that different nationalities, and regions have different preferences in sound. I have always regarded these assertions with suspicion because, if they were true, it would mean that there would be different pianos for each of these regions, different trumpets, bassoons and kettledrums. Vocalists would change how they sang when they were in
Germany, Britain, and the U.S. I wonder what Pavarotti’s Japanese timbre sounds like? Of course, it doesn’t happen that way. The entire world enjoys the same musical instruments and voices in live performance, and the recording industry sends the same recordings throughout the world.

djones51
4,947 posts
 
If humans can hear it it can be measured. How the brain interprets that sound is the focus of science now. Speakers and room acoustics determine most of what we hear. As long as the reproduction chain is as neutral as possible which can be done now then what’s on the medium will get to the speakers. Some don’t like what the recording engineers put on that medium so we have tone controls of various kinds to tweak it to our liking. Distortion in some tube and SS amps, cables designed as tone controls, EQs, Digital processing etc.. are ways we tune our systems to our liking and correct the flaws of our speakers and rooms. But the notion science can’t measure or understand the recording and playback process isn’t correct.
djones51
4,947 posts
 
Toole advocates direct A/B comparison of speakers. Quickly switching between two or more
While he has done tests like that he also has done extensive tests where the listener controls when to switch speakers they just don’t know which speakers they are switching and neither did the testers it was controlled with a computer by random. Of course they are volume leveled, what good is a test without doing the obvious,
djones51
4,947 posts
 
Using the food analogy, science knows eating to much of certain things are bad for us,  what nutrients we need. The problem the scientist is pointing out is one of message or marketing not science.

I've read ASR and like all forums I wouldn't paint it with broad brush. Some are buried in measurements but some accept subjective preferences as long as biases have been controlled. I have also seen some who say they know their opinion is subjective but they still like one component over another and that's fine. What does get very contentious is when some pop up claiming aan item does something or is better without showing why other than their subjective opinion. 
djones51
4,947 posts
 
What other scientific endeavor accepts subjective opinion as evidence and rejects scientifically accepted DBX testing as worthless? 
djones51
4,947 posts
 

this is not a science project.
As far as sound reproduction it pretty much is science. Science doesn't assist without science the jewelry you're playing that "art" on wouldn't exist. 
djones51
4,947 posts
 

Ive seen it used in consumer product research and marketing very heavily especially food and drink. But at the end of the day it doesn’t matter how good you design cola to taste some folks are always going to prefer Pepsi over Coke because it is a subjective experience, just like hifi is.
At least you know it’s a subjective choice not an objective one. If you test two amps using DBT and you always prefer amp A then you know your choice is based on how it sounds. When you finally see the two amps and amp A was a cheap Class D and amp B was a high priced Class A and you buy amp B then you know your choice is like choosing Coke over Pepsi, subjective opinion.
djones51
4,947 posts
 
 Wormtosser, Did you read through that thread? The "test" mode had more distortion, when the distortion compensation was turned off some of the numbers were better than the test mode. They couldn't figure out what was going on since it looked like distortion compensation was doing the opposite of what it was suppose to do. 
More to discover