There was a saying I am sure not unique to my career or experience - "If you can't dazzle with your brilliance, baffle with bulls***". Pitches to sell a customer on a product contained many charts, graphs, calculations and claimed benefits to designed to create an aura of expertise and authority. An audience could not possibly independently confirm or dispute every piece of data presented as truthful or not - or even applicable. Sound familiar?
Some thoughts on ASR and the reviews
I’ve briefly taken a look at some online reviews for budget Tekton speakers from ASR and Youtube. Both are based on Klippel quasi-anechoic measurements to achieve "in-room" simulations.
As an amateur speaker designer, and lover of graphs and data I have some thoughts. I mostly hope this helps the entire A’gon community get a little more perspective into how a speaker builder would think about the data.
Of course, I’ve only skimmed the data I’ve seen, I’m no expert, and have no eyes or ears on actual Tekton speakers. Please take this as purely an academic exercise based on limited and incomplete knowledge.
1. Speaker pricing.
One ASR review spends an amazing amount of time and effort analyzing the ~$800 US Tekton M-Lore. That price compares very favorably with a full Seas A26 kit from Madisound, around $1,700. I mean, not sure these inexpensive speakers deserve quite the nit-picking done here.
2. Measuring mid-woofers is hard.
The standard practice for analyzing speakers is called "quasi-anechoic." That is, we pretend to do so in a room free of reflections or boundaries. You do this with very close measurements (within 1/2") of the components, blended together. There are a couple of ways this can be incomplete though.
a - Midwoofers measure much worse this way than in a truly anechoic room. The 7" Scanspeak Revelators are good examples of this. The close mic response is deceptively bad but the 1m in-room measurements smooth out a lot of problems. If you took the close-mic measurements (as seen in the spec sheet) as correct you’d make the wrong crossover.
b - Baffle step - As popularized and researched by the late, great Jeff Bagby, the effects of the baffle on the output need to be included in any whole speaker/room simulation, which of course also means the speaker should have this built in when it is not a near-wall speaker. I don’t know enough about the Klippel simulation, but if this is not included you’ll get a bass-lite expereinced compared to real life. The effects of baffle compensation is to have more bass, but an overall lower sensitivity rating.
For both of those reasons, an actual in-room measurement is critical to assessing actual speaker behavior. We may not all have the same room, but this is a great way to see the actual mid-woofer response as well as the effects of any baffle step compensation.
Looking at the quasi anechoic measurements done by ASR and Erin it _seems_ that these speakers are not compensated, which may be OK if close-wall placement is expected.
In either event, you really want to see the actual in-room response, not just the simulated response before passing judgement. If I had to critique based strictly on the measurements and simulations, I’d 100% wonder if a better design wouldn’t be to trade sensitivity for more bass, and the in-room response would tell me that.
3. Crossover point and dispersion
One of the most important choices a speaker designer has is picking the -3 or -6 dB point for the high and low pass filters. A lot of things have to be balanced and traded off, including cost of crossover parts.
Both of the reviews, above, seem to imply a crossover point that is too high for a smooth transition from the woofer to the tweeters. No speaker can avoid rolling off the treble as you go off-axis, but the best at this do so very evenly. This gives the best off-axis performance and offers up great imaging and wide sweet spots. You’d think this was a budget speaker problem, but it is not. Look at reviews for B&W’s D series speakers, and many Focal models as examples of expensive, well received speakers that don’t excel at this.
Speakers which DO typically excel here include Revel and Magico. This is by no means a story that you should buy Revel because B&W sucks, at all. Buy what you like. I’m just pointing out that this limited dispersion problem is not at all unique to Tekton. And in fact many other Tekton speakers don’t suffer this particular set of challenges.
In the case of the M-Lore, the tweeter has really amazingly good dynamic range. If I was the designer I’d definitely want to ask if I could lower the crossover 1 kHz, which would give up a little power handling but improve the off-axis response. One big reason not to is crossover costs. I may have to add more parts to flatten the tweeter response well enough to extend it's useful range. In other words, a higher crossover point may hide tweeter deficiencies. Again, Tekton is NOT alone if they did this calculus.
I’ve probably made a lot of omissions here, but I hope this helps readers think about speaker performance and costs in a more complete manner. The listening tests always matter more than the measurements, so finding reviewers with trustworthy ears is really more important than taste-makers who let the tools, which may not be properly used, judge the experience.
1,166 responses
(facepalm) Absolutely Wrong! @mofojo , A low info computer science undergrad (gpa = 2.0)/programmer grunt wouldn’t have had any coursework/tech electives in vibration, shock mechanics, etc. That’s the domain of the engineering phds (aerospace, MechE, etc), typically, i.e. guys who end up in env.test/sim engineering, spend a lot of time with setting up tests, instrumentation, sim models, validation, etc. Don’t believe a word coming out of a low aptitude computer science grunt. His only job is to write 2 stupid lines of code without understanding anything about what it’s for. It is a very simple ring down requirement (threshold) you can pose in the time domain and analyze it for any driver. It will be different for different drivers. In a parallel engineering world, it is done all the freaking time when mechanical shocks (impulses, whatever) are performed for testing components with ED shakers, res plates, etc.
|
Whelp... In all the time I've talked to audiophiles the issue of speed keeps coming up, especially with subwoofers. While I understand why audiophiles have a hard time integrating subwoofers to any speaker and room, the speed issue seems to not be a speed issue but a bass mode issue. Keep your subwoofer small and you don't wake the dragons, so they "sound" faster. they aren't faster, they are less dangerous. OTOH, what IS real is that high-passing drivers makes many, especially mid-woofers, really shine. The bass, where they have output but at considerable distortion, gets moved to drivers with much lower distortion at the same db/Hz. |
1. Why do people wonder why someone who has a thread started that is critical of both them and their entire website bothers to respond? Someone has a problem here and its not the one being challenged. 2. If someone feels so strongly negative about another’s approach, rather than categorically trash the person (an increasingly common practice these days as more people follow bad examples they are exposed to daily), maybe start your own website that does it better your way and see where the cards fall? Otherwise best to stay away from personal mudslinging if one cares about leaving a good impression. Challenge the specifics of what is being asserted that you disagree with, rather than the person. Offer a better way perhaps. IT's not a crime nor a felony to at least try to take a scientific/measured approach to something, especially something like hifi gear that is purely a result of technology done right or wrong to various degrees. |
I’m going to go out on a limb and assert @erik_squires loves to push buttons. Just saying. Not a bad thing in of itself but one should not be surprised at what ensues. IF it takes a bad enough turn, any thread can be removed if deemed to be contrary for the common good of all. |
How does "ring down" equate to "fast"? Liberties with semantics being taken here? There is such a thing as "slew rate", a metric with very specific technical meaning in electronic signal processing and the time domain that I would assert clearly does matter, to the extent which it can be accurately measured in practice. Certain op-amps designed to perform well in hifi applications are known for exceptional slew rate measurements. |
The time domain of the electrical tool in Fourier mapping dont equate the time domain of the ears/brain who work non linearly ...Then what we call a sound quality for a human perceiver cannot be reduced to a Fourier map...Especially not to a few set of specs measured from a detached piece of gear ,,, Then instead of arguing about the "gear" measure we must understand psychoacoustics...No subjectivist here , neither Amir seems to understood what does it means .. They are all too busy to reduce human hearing to their fetish tool or their prefered vacuum tube amp... Amir promote ideology as science not because his set of measures are useless "per se" but because he proposed them as crux of the matter without even knowing why this is scientifically false... Read the articles i suggested above ...At least 5 of them ... 😊
And yes mapman giving specs measure for what they really are NOT out of any scientific psychoacoustics context about human hearing is ideology and marketing not science... I suppose you had taken the time to read the articles of research i posted BEFORE you read marketing Amir about such and such piece of gear... 😊 i bet you did not.... Then how can you presume to understand ?
|
@mahgister , my friend, Sorry but it all matters. You can talk about human perceivers all day if desired but that is a completely different thing than is being discussed here so it serves to only muddy the waters in this thread. Starting a new thread on that topic specifically would be more appropriate and effective.
|
Because you dont understand how the articles i proposed to explain Amir context and error are above your head you suppose everybody must be like you ?😁
Incredible arrogance accusing me because i propose acoustics articles with explanation to quit .... Explain to me first why my psychoacoustics articles about the way human hearing works matter not at all to interpret "sound qualities" ... And why electrical specs are enough and all we need to evaluate gear piece... Go... Why not creating your own thread about Why Amir is right ? People gangstalk others here as in ASR for the same reason : ignorance... When we have something to say we quote the litterature and we explain why and it is what i did... Amir nor you did not proposed any other articles contradicting my 5 articles above ... NONE... Amir play with his graphs but you play with my patience asking me to quit ... I never asked for people able to think rationally to quit... Try to read the 5 articles and try to understand their relation and you will understand why Amir is wrong with his "science" interpereting his graphs as acoustic truths ...
|
Amir would never submit himself to listening tests in a room of serious tweakos. No way. If they were A/B ing various things and he said he heard no difference then they would all go on the forums and tell everyone that Amir cannot hear. If Amir heard all the differences that everyone else heard and admitted it to them then he would have to go on to his forum and tell everyone that he was wrong all those years. Either scenario would blow his ego to pieces. Therefore he will NEVER EVER let himself be in such a situation. (The last statement is false because he will eventually let go of this false belief....but probably not this lifetime). His ego (false identification) would be creamed....forever. This whole dance of life is for the soul to grow from false identification to knowing that we are the pure infinite love and joy of existence (our true identity....forever and ever). On one hand we have Amir defending his position with charts and quotes.....and on the other hand we have Mahgister defending his position with saying the same thing (almost incomprehensible) over and over and asking us to read others thoughts which prove his side of the story. The soul needs no defense. We are....and always will be magnficient. We are already worthy. We don’t need to prove it. The simple truth is........you need to listen to something to know how it sounds......plain and simple. All other thoughts and actions and posts are noise (distorted truth). You need to feel love and joy to know how it feels...what it is. So, you can all continue making ego noise or enjoy a beautiful song on your stereo and tweak your stereo to make it sound even more beautiful and give you bigger goosebumps. What do you choose?.....to be right or have goosebumps? Today I am ordering a LifePo4 battery and charger for the Giandel inverter that got shipped yesterday, to make my stereo sound better. Also, will be doubling up my speaker wire to my woofers this weekend and trying a tiny capacitor bypass cap across the inductor on my woofs. After that, I want to order two of those super low impedance toroidal inductors from Jantzen and see what they "sound" like. I WANT BIGGER GOOSEBUMPS. What do you want? What does your soul want? What does your ego want? Which will you follow? I want you all to feel the infinite love and joy that exists......RIGHT NOW......This is who you are.....and have always been. It is not the two hands beating on each other......it is the two hands in prayer.......the oneness of our being. Blessings. |
if you do not understand this simple article at the end of my post as the first of 5 explaining how human hearing cannot be reduced to few electrical specs measure of gear ask me a question instead of accusing me to be incomprehensible ...I will answer WITHOUT insinuation as you just did.. Do you think your love mantra just after insulting insinuation toward me instead of question express good faith ?😊 Instead of insinuating about Amir why not proposing real science as i did to demolish his fragile ideology ? I myself design also like you my own tweaks but it is useless to speak about that to Amir or his zealots... only science can talk... Psychoacoustics ... Period...
https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html |
|
Most Wonderful Mahgister, I am sure you are correct about what it says. You KNOW that listening rules. Your heart is beautiful. However, the way you write and how much you write makes most of us just skip over your posts. You ever notice that practically no one says they read your articles or really replies to what you say? It is like you are just talking over and over again to yourself. Of course, we are always just talking to ourself. I try to listen and take to heart everything I say and post and think and feel and do. We don't need to read articles to know how to listen. We listen and know. We don't need to prove to anyone that listening rules. We listen and know. Do I really need to read an article that defends my listening experience? It needs no defense....you listen and know. You do not listen....you do not know. We are all a projection machine.......we see nothing but our own desires. We create....moment to moment our reality by the quality of our thoughts, words spoken, feelings felt and actions done. Whatever we put out.....becomes our reality. So, be careful what you think and say and feel and do. You are powerful....infinitely so. Think good thoughts. speak beautiful words....feel beautiful feelings and be of loving service.......be a do gooder. We all win when you do. |
here another article that can help anybody to understand how our ears/brain work in their own time domain , then Amir measuring ideology crumble to dust because he equate electrical specs measured in Fourier linear domain with truth for human hearing and it is not:
Minimal Bounds on Nonlinearity in Auditory Processing https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0513 «Time-reversal symmetry breaking is a key feature of nearly all natural sounds, caused by the physics of sound production. While attention has been paid to the response of the auditory system to “natural stimuli,” very few psychophysical tests have been performed. We conduct psychophysical measurements of time-frequency acuity for both “natural” notes (sharp attack, long decay) and time-reversed ones. Our results demonstrate significantly greater precision, arising from enhanced temporal acuity, for such “natural” sounds over both their time-reversed versions and theoretically optimal gaussian pulses, without a corresponding decrease in frequency acuity. These data rule out models of auditory processing that obey a modified “uncertainty principle” between temporal and frequency acuity and suggest the existence of statistical priors for naturalistic stimuli, in the form of sharp-attack, long-decay notes. We are addition ally able to calculate a minimal theoretical bound on the order of the nonlinearity present in auditory
|
I spoke for the benefit of ONE or TWO people here who are interested enough by this to really want to understand what is psychoacousyics about...and if i am useful with ONE my posted article i will be justified... it is better than gangstalking Amir...
Most people dont understand what Amir spoke about anyway they only follow as sheep... And when they understand the specs they dont understand the psychoacoustic context necessary to interpret them... Instead of insulting Amir , as most here did, i propose real science... All my articles are INTERRELATED. from different scientists .. 5 or 6 now... Then i dont write as you suggested to hear me speaking...because the content is here and speak for itself... What articles in science are you able to use to deconstruct Amir marketing ? None...
|
You mean like your psychoacoustics fetish? Oh well. Choose your fetish! What the hey. How about this. Let’s tie a string between two tin cans and I will sing you a song. The psychoacoustics will explain it all and any old tin can and string will suffice.
|
---Here electrical specs of gear: A ---Here psychoacoustical characteristic of human hearing about the way our brain extract information from natural sound, because our ears is biased in some time breaking symmetry direction. B Then to connect A and B we need to know how to measure and design the gear accordingly to these psychoacoustics characteristics...because our brain is wired in some way by evolution to perceive in a non linear way ( with sharp attack, long decay) all sounds in his own time domain ... Then no Fourier maps of gear specs as Amir use them can predict sound quality for our ears evaluation... Amir said no , we dont need that, only the electrical tools we use are good enough to predict S.Q. This contradict elementary psychoacoustics research... Do you get it ? Stop accusing me of fetichism , you project onto others your own image ... Grow....And read... I underline the essential for you to ponder over : «We have demonstrated that human auditory perception is primed for the shapes of natural sounds,a sharp attack followed by a long decay, corresponding to the physics of natural sound production. We have used simple, direct psychophysical measurements to test for the changes in simultaneous time-frequency acuity after reversing the temporal direction of symmetry-broken pulses, lending credence to, |
I don’t need to deconstruct Amir. He is perfect, just the way he is. Some of his beliefs are not based in truth....and someday he will truly understand. We all will. Are you superior to me because I don’t quote science articles? Why would I care what others say about listening? My own ears know the truth. Be true to yourself. Stand in your truth. You don’t need to fight.......anyone....ever. You are perfect....just the way you are. Do you feel more love towards yourself and everyone after you post? After you put up all those links to articles practically no one reads? I want you to feel better and better about yourself....every day.....I want you to make every post you write a beautiful love letter to yourself sayng how much you are loved. I love my self with all my heart and soul......WE are ALL so Beautiful.......Kisses and hugs. Here is a song I sing sometimes: "There is nothing to need, hide from or fear. We are whole and complete, right now and right here". |
Stop projecting! You accused others of fetichism. I just pointed out yours accordingly. Also I read the article. Does not help me determine what to buy in any way. I am fetish-agnostic . I take it all in. Your fetish appears to totally consume you to the point of not being capable of considering anything else. Help us out. What specific gear is best in your assessment? How did you make that determination?
Thanks.
|
--- Many Subjectivist are fetichist of their gear pieces Brand name as SOLUTION for all ... This is illustrated by all audio thread...😊 It is not always bad i used statistical analysis of all reviews to buy my gear) ---Many objectivists are fetichists of their own measuring tool and only bought what their tools dictate... ( specs are useful for basic electrical synergy and designing minimal standards of quality thats all they are mostly meaningless to predict sound quality )
If you had read my posts instead of insulting me and asking me to quit , you will know that i use my ears and i use also objective acoustics parameters measures to create my own dedicated room based on Helmholtz principle among other basic acoustics facts.. I never proposed my favorite gear as SOLUTION for the only reason it is my fetish object of choice as others did all the time ( i modified my gear anyway😋) ... And i dont propose my fetish tool as the ONLY solution to gear purchase as Amir does... i for years advocated for many low cost tweaks ... ( i was insulted for that as thin foil hat ) but i am most interested in acoustics science now because i go deeper in experiments ... Then if you can think you can see that i am not fetichist about any object, gear or tool , but i am interested by acoustic principle to install the gear and make it work at his optimal level ... ( i modified my headphone and my speakers) Complete success at peanuts cost thanks to acoustic experiments and other tweaks i designed .. i promote reading basic acoustics.. ( not just room acoustic basic) Then i cannot be accused of fetichism because there is no object on which i focus my exclusive interest save science and experiments in acoustic.. Then you insulted me with NO REASON ...
|
I did not insult Amir. I just stated what was true...........that much of his thinking is an ego trip. This is just truth. Not an insult. We all have an ego. If we did not we would walk into the street and get run over. We need the ego to survive. However, we do not need much of it to live a glorious life. If Amir was here I would kiss and hug him and tell him how beautiful he is. When someone says something not true then it is up to everyone who knows the truth to chime in. If we let lies prevail then the ultimate truth (that we are eternal love and joy) will not be attained. All truth is tied together. Whether it is physical truth or metaphysical truth. If we speak with forked tongues then we all lose. Say and live the truth. The truth is.....everyone is totally in love with everyone and everything.....forever and ever. However, it takes a million lifetimes to realize it totally. We have eternity. We don’t NEED science to know what is real.....about audio or about life. We are a miracle......70 trillion cells dancing in love and joy. We KNOW what is real. We experience it directly. I don’t need a science lesson to know which DAC sounds better. I use my ears. If you want to continue and fight Amir using words and science quotes......then have at. But does it bring you happiness? Do you feel more love and joy when you post?.......I am listening right now to some incredibly spiritual music and the sun is shinning outside my window and the leaves are dancing in the wind. It is always a miracle. I wish more of this for you and everyone. Please stop fighting and TRYING to prove you are OK......and feel how loved you are. Go outside and put your arms up in the air and proclaim to the whole world......"Thank you LIFE.....for the glorious love that you bestow on me right this minute. I feel so blessed. I will spread this love and joy to everyone. Thank you, thank you, thank you.....forever" You are worthy.....you are worthy......you don’t need to do or say anything.....you are worthy just as you are. You were always worthy.....will always be worthy. Let it in....let it in....let it in.........you DESERVE IT. You are magnificent!!!! Here is what I am listening to....right now
|
I have seen some subjective review sites rate gear in regards to "attack" and "decay". That seems reasonable at face value. I would equate attack with good transient response, even if not measured and determined in an error prone subjective manner. Decay though? Yeah I get teh concept. Pluck a violin string and the note "decays" gradually. But I would atribute hearing that in a recording to a good quality recording of teh instrument in question combined with now noise and distortion so teh natural "decay" can be heard. At teh same time, I don't want my hifi gear to add "decay" artificially even if that in theory sounds better to the average dude. I want accuracy and detail in my sound reproduction. That means low noise and distortion but not just in theory. I find teh gear that in fact measures well on noise and distortion tends to do all that stuff better....ie more accurately. No artificial filler, which might sound great. If others want that ie more of a "good" sounding thing, fine. Tube gear with high efficiency speakers to help compensate is a reasonable way to go. TO h-ll with measurements! |
No you dont get it ... I did not speak about subjective gear evaluation with attack and decay as main analysis parameters as you suggested here. I was speaking about psychoacoustics wiring of brain/ears by evolution history ... I dont say it is bad to do so evaluating attack and decay ... But you dont get the point of what this means in acoustics : We are wired by evolution this way, then the ears/brain is able to extract information , beating the Fourier uncertainty limit, or the Gabor limit, BECAUSE we are wired this way... The acoustic information that we will characterized as "pleasing" and "musical" will be perceived from our own brain time domain not from the linear Fourier time domain on the Amir graph measuring gear pieces ...Our brain break the time symmetry at the root of Fourier mapping... Do you get it ? Read the articles i suggested... There is way more in the other articles but if i explained it all i will be gangstalked by some because it will be too long set of posts...
I want myself a balance between all 14 characteristcs of acoustic qualities... You dont want detail and accuracy for the sake of detail and accuracy over any other qualities more than any other acoustic characteristic, save if your system /room is defective... Balance is the Key word because all acoustics 14 parameters go TOGETHER ... For sure you can want anything but i dont want to stay ignorant about acoustics balance between all factors ... |
It seems i am not so well loved because i post CONTENT... 😊 Not sarcasms... Not insults... Not accusations... FACTS in science ...
Ask yourself why this makes SOME reacted so much ... Even if they dont like Amir but are unable to deconstruct his marketing ideology rationally themselves only using insults ... 😊 I posted ARGUMENTS and articles... Get used to it...
|
«Lastly, our observations about time-reversal symmetry breaking and the temporal https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0513 meditate about the last line of this article to understand what means the time breaking symmetry by the brain/ears of the Fourier mapping... This symmetry breaking is associated with the way the ears/brain break this linear mapping symmetry because evolution for our own survival put us in the mode of tracking immediately the meaning of natural sounds around us... It is why we are wired to beat the Fourier uncertainty limit in extracting an information Amir claim we cannot ... But he never answered on this ... He sold his marketing site not science . And here some ask for my departure because they prefer hating Amir instead of debunking him with reason .. What a world when people keep hate for years even if this is not good for their health ...😊 At least Amir never insulted me asking for my departure...
|
@mapman stated: "2. If someone feels so strongly negative about another’s approach, rather than categorically trash the person (an increasingly common practice these days as more people follow bad examples they are exposed to daily), maybe start your own website that does it better your way and see where the cards fall?" Wise word for all, including Amir and ASR. Have been following ASR for several years and initially found it interesting. Over time it became clear there was an undercurrent of arrogance, group think, and rude behavior. Attacks on people and companies in the audio industry increased without any real justification. An ASR member typically starts an inflamatory thread using slurs like snake oil, charlatan, or audiofool. Any call for reason is typically met with dismissive ridicule. Wishes for legitimate and legal businesses to fail have been openly and proudly expressed by ASR members, arrogantly wrapping themselves in the shroud of science, physics, electronics, et al as the singular pinnacle of knowledge, The multitude of posts from Amir in this thread, this forum, and other forums supports that characterization. All the measurement work Amir does taken by itself is great information. Unfortunately, as @mapman suggested Amir and ASR are not satisfied to let the cards fall. As self appointed monitors of the audio industry, singular speakers of truth, and saviors to the unwashed audiofools scrutiny and criticism is appropriate and well deserved. There is one incident that revealed an ASR member questionable actions, later vehemently defended by the ASR faithful. Amir performed a fair product review, but did nothing to address the blatant attempt to negatively influence his product review. Amir and ASR faithful should not be considered pure, impartial or honest brokers only interested in improving the audio industry and audio hobby. Their mode of operation is not to let the cards fall. |
@mahgister, please don't misstate my background. I grew up with electronics in 1960s as my hobby so naturally went to get my BS in Electrical Engineering. I have managed hardware engineering at no less than three companies (Sony, Pinnacle Systems (now Avid) and Abekas Video Systems). I put myself through college repairing all manner of electronics, both audio and RF. Both my education and professional experience includes signal processing, the very topic you are referencing in those papers. While I have extensive experience in software, networking, etc., that is not at all the net total of what I know. Even if my background was just software, I don't see how that would matter with respect to technical issues I found in the paper. As such, there was no need to appeal to authority in the manner you did, and proceed to put down my qualifications. |
No, but I wonder if they understood the very reference they put forward. The paper is short and I must have quoted a third of it. Not just one sentence. You have responded to none of the points I raised with respect to flaws in the paper's thesis and message. Simply put, the paper makes the obvious point that if you band limit a system and then feed it an impulse with infinite bandwidth (an dirac delta or impulse), you get ringing. It then makes a giant leap saying such ringing must be a figure of fidelity and the less we have, the better. No listening test results or psychoacoustics is reference to prove this. He then says post decay is a figure of merit for fidelity and makes a bunch of unsubstantiated claims the analog systems are better, electrostatic speakers are better, etc. He never measures these systems with his own metrics and simply pleads that the reader take those as valid. Well, they are not valid as they go against solid body of evidence to the contrary. None of your posts have used this decay measurement to show better fidelity. No one in the industry or research is using it either. It is just someone's idea of that is thrown out there and you are grabbing it and running with it. And then expect us to accept it as gospel. Why? Because he has a physics degree? That degree does not at all prepare you to understand psychoacoustics, or knowledge of audio fidelity. I had to deal with another such physicist with somewhat similar claims. See this video of mine:
By your author's definition, we should use RF amplifiers with bandwidth in gigahertz to have the best audio system! Please don't reference this article without being able to explain all the flaws in it. |
I apologize if i did reduce your experience field as it seems. I dont know your exact background. Then i dont understand why the articles coming from different researchers in acoustics were dismissed by you... I cannot then invoke ignorance from you ... Then... it is simple matter for someone with your knowledge... You cannot extrapolate from electrical gear specs to perception of specific acoustic experience... These acoustics articles explained why from different point of view...
|
The best way to deal with Mahgister’s incredibly soporific posts and Amir’s nonsense is to ignore them both. I scroll past anything by Mahgister because if I want to sleep I will take a Mogadon. As an aside, if anyone wants to see Amir called out for poor testing practices, I suggest you read this thread: |
you miss completely the argument... It is not about measurement here... He explained why it is very difficult to measure this without very serious research... You dismissed it without even getting the main point BECAUSE IT SUIT YOU..😊 The main point is here :
«We have demonstrated that human auditory perception is primed for the shapes of natural sounds,a sharp attack followed by a long decay, corresponding to the physics of natural sound production. We have used simple, direct psychophysical measurements to test for the changes in simultaneous time-frequency acuity after reversing the temporal direction of symmetry-broken pulses, lending credence to,
This fact that human hearing trained by evolution makes us able to extract information over the Fourier uncertainty limit ,( because of this symmetry breaking disposition making us sensible or biased toward to Attack-decay time), this fact make preposterous ANY CLAIM about the reduction of any auditory experience a consequence predicted by only a few set of measures on some piece of gear evaluated in the context of the Fourier linear mapping. Then your pretense to predict sound quality with your narrow set of measures is preposterous... our ears/brain work non linearly in his own time domain...The sound quality cannot be predicted from the reading of the specs of a piece of gear interpreted in a linear context with simple tools. ... We cannot replace hearing... this is why Van Maanen insisted on the importance of taking into account the way our hearing work:
«The, never mentioned, assumption is that the frequency components above the systems frequencies not present in the original signal can be generated
and/or other frequencies can acquire more power than in the original sig-
nal. This can easily be demonstrated using a 3 kHz sine wave with 5 periods
on and 5 periods off. Although Fourier analysis tells that 300 Hz is only a weak component in this signal, it is the strongest one hears. As 300 Hz corresponds to the envelope of the signal it is not surprising using the non-linear properties of our ears. It can be concluded that frequencies above the hearing limit can indeed generate signals that are below the hearing limit which could thus influence the perceived sound and the quality experienced.» All this demonstrate the complete futility to PREDICT sound quality by measuring with Fourier linear tool some aspects of the gear piece ...
We must listen...
And why we must listen it is because the human ears dont work as ASR order it , it work as Magnasco and Oppenheim experiments reveal it : it extract too much information to obey Fourier uncertainty mathematical limit. Then it work non linearly in his time domain as evolution has designed us.
Then your set of electrical measures so useful they could be CANNOT PREDICT sound quality experience... Your stance is ideological not rooted in acoustics science ...
|
Hey! Nonoise you hated Amir but it suit you only to give him insults? We discussed and gave arguments... Amir is wrong but stay polite as a gentleman ... Imitate him ... Dont infest the thread with non sense post suggesting hate or free sarcasms instead of reason... I am fed by gangstalking people here ... |
@mahgister Hey magister! I don't hate Amir, I just don't like his style and motives. You're not remotely qualified to assess what I say and mean, and for that matter, never have been. You, if anyone, are not polite. You explode with anger all the time and when confronted with your behavior, you apologize. You've done that many, many times. If anyone should imitate Amir, it is you, but you don't have that ability, as you've shown time over time all these years. The patience he's shown you is more than anyone I know would exhibit. As for infestation of threads, that seems to be your forte. You've done it for years. Practically everything you've said in this thread, you've brought up before to the point of boring the heck out of members. You go off on your tangents demanding that others must respond and when one or two do respond, you claim vindication and insult other members when they complain of your tactic of highjacking a thread. You post multiple times in a row but no one answers and it spoils the thread and intention of those who want to participate. Like others have already said, they (we) just pass over what you write hoping you lose interest (at least I do). If you're of the mind, why don't you go over to ASR and start posting there and let us know how that goes. By the way, if you really think members here are "gangstalking" you, reflect for a moment as to why and you'll discover it is because of you and your manner. All the best, |
It is about measurement. This is from the summary right at the start: "SUMMARY. In the discussion about the perceived quality of sound systems the temporal aspect is often neglected or its importance underestimated. In this paper we propose a semi-quantitative property of systems to compare these, taking the temporal behaviour into account. We have tried to find a simple, easily to find and to interpret parameter which by no means will be the final answer to the problems encountered in audio, but can help to improve the comparison of systems in a more objective way and could help to direct future developments." It can't more clear that he is proposing an objective, measured parameter. Yet, neither he, nor you apply this to any system to measure it. Why advocate an objective measurement when you can't or haven't computed it?
What you quoted is not in this paper. Please stay on this paper instead of jumping to other ones. It is a difficult enough discussion to have without doing that.
The paper introduces a dead simple measurement of its own, which is simply met with wide bandwidth. It completely excludes distortions and noise, two of the most important impairments in audio. Once again from the paper: "Disregarding non-linear distortions, the frequency response between 20 Hz and 20 kHz of a system is very often taken as a major parameter determining the quality of a sound reproduction system." A simple impulse response is not going to tell you anything remotely akin to fidelity of the system. This measurement has been known for decades and decades yet it is not at all applied in this application. You want to call a a measurement "narrow" and preposterous, there is no better example than what is in the paper you reference.'
Nothing as such can be concluded unless listening test results are shown to prove it. Tests of high resolution music which by definition has higher bandwidth and less ringing in audio domain, have failed to provide clear audible evidence. If doubling or quadrupling the system bandwidth and hence reduction in decay time can't be shown to have value, what he is saying is in dire need of proofs, not pleadings.
There is no such statement or position in the paper. Per above, audio system non-linearities and noise are put aside and an argument is made for a single, trivial measurement that he hasn't perform to prove anything.
Which neither you, nor the author have done. Given that, the paper should be dismissed then, right?
|
Adding on,
As I have repeatedly explained to you in the past, many measurements I perform are devoid of any use of Fourier transform. SINAD for example is computed using simple signal subtraction (you take out the input tone and all that is left is noise+distortion which we call SINAD). Signal to noise ratio is just a level differential. THD+N vs frequency is the above but at different frequencies. We perform fourier transforms so that we can then apply psychoacosutics to the measurements. It is not by itself as you keep claiming, is the way measurements are performed. So please stop calling my measurements Fourier based. |
If you want to take notice of measurements I suggest you look at Erin’s Audio Corner. He is far more professional and thorough than Amir. Interestingly Amir could not stand the competition and so banned Erin from ASR. Even many ASR minions thought this was unfair. In typical Amir fashion he shut down the thread because he was afraid some minions would support Erin and leave the cult. This is what Amir always does when he is challenged. |
He is not banned from ASR. A number of others have started to measure equipment and they do so on ASR. And I routinely promote their content as long as it is not for monetization. When Tekton threatened to sue Erin, it was me who came to his rescue, offering $10,000 personally and getting him lawyers. The latter helped him get out from under Eric at Tekton. |
