Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?

[ack]

I am reading this exchange and noticing the stark contrast in their approaches. It makes me reflect about what each has written about his own approach to the audio hobby. The approaches appear to be vastly different.

Many have read with much interest Steve's very enthusiastic "One Amigo" thread about his visit to hear David's system. The fabulous turntable collection, anchored by the ultra rare American Sound table, those vintage horn speakers, the current Lamm tube amplifiers, and the great analog music collection. This must surely represent one of the best examples of what audio science has achieved, and I am sure, many people would love to hear this system.

Contrast that to Amir's approach and the description of his system and digital music collection. With the expertise of Harman research and the serious personal journey upon which Amir embarked to better understand audio science and his own abilities to identify through rigorous testing methods the most accurate, pleasing and "musical" components available, Amir's system must also represent one of the best examples of what audio science has achieved, and I am sure, many people would also love to hear this system.

Beyond the obvious analog/digital and vintage/contemporary differences, I think it would be fascinating to hear some well recorded and very familiar music on both systems and listen to how they differ in their approaches to music reproduction. Imagine being able to do both unsighted, quick listening tests and also longer term sighted listening. It would be an audiophile's dream.

Could we, with any degree of accuracy, determine which system more closely reproduces both what is on the original recording and also which sounds more like a real acoustic musical event? Would they be equally enjoyable in the long term? And could we, by listening to these two systems, better understand what audio science can explain about sound?

Excellent points! I for one would love to read even a single sentence from anyone about Amir's system, and 5+ years now, I don't think I have ever seen any comments on his system. More than that, the vast majority of us audiophiles seem to attest to certain shortcomings in our systems and describe how we improve them after identifying the flaws, and I would love to read about similar journeys in Amir's.

 

[steve williams]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Steve. There is a rush to dismiss and discredit the available science (and engineering if we're drawing that line) every time it shows up here, except in the rare occasion that it supports the existing audiophile conventional wisdom. Too bad you can't see that.

Tim

Tim

you obviously can't see the trees for the forest.

My comment was that the issue was unrelated to the content of the science presented but rather to the manner in which it is delivered.

Perhaps you can remember back last month when the infamous PeterB called us a bunch of wankers and that he had the only gifted ears and that is what separates the wheat from the chaff. That comment lit up everyones's monitor and became the object of everyones disdain

Perhaps this comment here might be akin to separating the wheat from the chaff and will give you an idea why it is I who get the complaints from members..........

No, my experience is formal and as part of my professional career. On the former, I had ways of validating whether my experience was right or wrong in formal, controlled testing. You all's experiences are not such. And for the latter, my decisions defined my livelihood and that of countless employees and company's success and reputation. So they had considerable weight behind them requiring the conclusions to be properly drawn. You all's experiences have no such weight.

I will say again that it's not the content but the delivery and this is not coming from me but from countless members of WBF

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't know what kind of marketing you did, but from my experience (doing technical sales support, marketing and engineering in a computer company) I know that technical marketing to OEM customers is done differently from marketing to end users and that professional meetings are an effective way of gaining credibility with technical decision makers.

In the case of Harmon their research may not do much to help hi-end speaker sales, but I would not be in the least surprised if their industry technical reputation helped and continues to help with their OEM automobile speaker business.

YouTube videos are technical marketing to OEM customers? Not sure I get your meaning. We digress, but it's an interesting sidebar. Who are the original equipment manufacturers that Harman is reaching with these YouTube videos? Maybe a dozen (tops) automobile manufacturers world-wide? Yes, YouTube videos would be a very ineffective and inefficient way to reach that target market. The right way would be one decision-maker at a time.

Tim

 

[ddk]

I have quoted the very example of it (bolding mine). Please demonstrate how the amplifier was a) underpowered for the test in question and b) would have changed the rankings of loudspeakers as a result. Or explain why that is not a dispute of the research.

a) Are you categorically claiming that the Proceed amp is the ideal match to the B&W or there's another motive for your question? Save us a few posts, all the scientific data that you require is on their respective sites and you don't need me for that, get it and prove me wrong. My method is hands on, unscientific for you and sighted.

b) No, the way that test was setup a more suitable amplification wouldn't have changed the outcome much, there are other factors there.

c) Questioning a particular test isn't disputing an entire body of research, that's your view, not mine.

A day ago your buddy AJ declared that he has problems with that test, ask him about his scientific reasoning, or better still, get the specs including impedance ratings, sensitivity, dispersion and reflective patterns on the three speakers and prove me wrong scientifically, should be simple enough for you. Then you can claim that your posts to me have any technical material.

david

 

[853guy]

YouTube videos are technical marketing to OEM customers? Not sure I get your meaning. We digress, but it's an interesting sidebar. Who are the original equipment manufacturers that Harman is reaching with these YouTube videos? Maybe a dozen (tops) automobile manufacturers world-wide? Yes, YouTube videos would be a very ineffective and inefficient way to reach that target market. The right way would be one decision-maker at a time.

Tim

Harman's YouTube uploads have been viewed 1.824 million times, and counting. Bose's YouTube channel has 32.668 million views. They may not be using them to convince OEM customers, but they're not insignificant numbers. Someone's watching them.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

dismissing subjective listening experiences as if they don't exist, is troubling.

Yes, like Amirs Harman subjective listening experiences. Very troubling indeed.
Especially from those who outright dismiss anyone who doesn't have "first hand experience", even going as far as considering them unworthy of even commenting on the subject if they don't.

 

[PeterA]

Steve-There are obviously lots of other members besides Tim who appear to be clueless about what has been going on at WBF and who the main person is that is driving people away. I see no solution short of one of the two principals buying the other out from the forum. Short of that; chaos, charts, and graphs will continue to reign at WBF.

Yes, but there will also continue to be arrogance and condescension. To whit:

PeterA's, admittedly ill-informed and un-scientific response explaining how he isolated the change he believes he hears to his amps: "Here's how. When I turn on my amps and listen to my system, I notice changes, clearly audible to me, during the first hour or so."

And the response to my statement:

What would your reaction be if I said that you can hear such changes even though we can arrange to prove that nothing whatsoever has changed in the equipment?

What would your reaction be if I said that I can convince you to change your mind and "unhear" that change, again with nothing whatsoever changing in the equipment?

Impossibilities even though we can arrange for tests to generate such results? And for measurements and psychoacoustics to match them?

This is what Steve is talking about. It is the tone, the method of delivering the message. Clearly the poster knows much more that I do about audio science. Does he need to respond in this manner? This is the "I am expert" kind of response that PeterB gave so often. First of all, there certainly is a change to the equipment. Someone even provided a graph showing how distortion changes after a cold start with some amplifiers. Second, the heatsinks to my amps become warmer - another change. Third, my amps' bias needles move during warm up indicating that something, which I don't have the expertise to explain, is changing. In the end, they sound different and better to me.

This kind of response is insulting to me and to at least one other member who emailed me about it. This response illustrates a complete lack of courtesy and respect for a fellow forum member. I will say further, and try to address the post and not the poster, the post is that which would not be written by a gentleman.

 

[Al M.]

Yes, but there will also continue to be arrogance and condescension. To whit:

PeterA's, admittedly ill-informed and un-scientific response explaining how he isolated the change he believes he hears to his amps: "Here's how. When I turn on my amps and listen to my system, I notice changes, clearly audible to me, during the first hour or so."

And the response to my statement:



This is what Steve is talking about. It is the tone, the method of delivering the message. Clearly the poster knows much more that I do about audio science. Does he need to respond in this manner? This is the "I am expert" kind of response that PeterB gave so often. First of all, there certainly is a change to the equipment. Someone even provided a graph showing how distortion changes after a cold start with some amplifiers. Second, the heatsinks to my amps become warmer - another change. Third, my amps' bias needles move during warm up indicating that something, which I don't have the expertise to explain, is changing. In the end, they sound different and better to me.

This kind of response is insulting to me and to at least one other member who emailed me about it. This response illustrates a complete lack of courtesy and respect for a fellow forum member. I will say further, and try to address the post and not the poster, the post is that which would not be written by a gentleman.

Peter,

Amir already apologized for his tone today, twice in this post:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...mething-sounds&p=333183&viewfull=1#post333183

So I guess we should acknowledge that and move on.

Again, I have learned a great deal from some of Amir's posts and I am grateful for that, as I am for this forum that he co-founded. And I have every reason to assume that he will change his tone.

That Amir does care about tone is also evident from this heart-warming post of his:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ital-or-Analog&p=323485&viewfull=1#post323485

Thanks, Amir.

 

[NorthStar]

My post

? Explain That Stuff | Sound

? Book Explains Everything About Sound

? Scientists Are Recording The Sound Of The Whole Planet

____________

* Can Science Explain Everything?

* Can Science Explain Everything? Anything?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

a) Are you categorically claiming that the Proceed amp is the ideal match to the B&W

No, you claimed it wasn't. That's now obviously specious. Your claim of a mismatch is not based on any fact, as you don't even know what amp was used.

A day ago your buddy AJ declared that he has problems with that test

Not so much with the test per se, as with some of the conclusions drawn. I discussed this with Dr Olive directly, not via any proxies. And I certainly didn't need to impugn Dr Tooles character, as I allowed my argument to stand on its own merit.

 

[NorthStar]

Peter,

Amir already apologized for his tone today, twice in this post:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...mething-sounds&p=333183&viewfull=1#post333183

So I guess we should acknowledge that and move on.

Again, I have learned a great deal from some of Amir's posts and I am grateful for that, as I am for this forum that he co-founded. And I have every reason to assume that he will change his tone.

That Amir does care about tone is also evident from this heart-warming post of his:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ital-or-Analog&p=323485&viewfull=1#post323485

Thanks, Amir.

Second best post of this entire thread...after mine just above (> My post). :b

Furthermore, if Amir goes Bob goes too. :b ...And Jack, get your ass back. :b

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

Amir already apologized for his tone today, twice in this post:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...mething-sounds&p=333183&viewfull=1#post333183

So I guess we should acknowledge that and move on.

Again, I have learned a great deal from some of Amir's posts and I am grateful for that, as I am for this forum that he co-founded. And I have every reason to assume that he will change his tone.

That Amir does care about tone is also evident from this heart-warming post of his:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ital-or-Analog&p=323485&viewfull=1#post323485

Thanks, Amir.

Thank you Al. Yes, I noted that and hope it is a precursor for a new approach.

I find the choice of your second link, characterized as "heartwarming", somewhat ironic as it is a post by Amir responding to Jack, a wonderful member who, unfortunately, left the forum.

 

[Al M.]

Thank you Al. Yes, I noted that and hope it is a precursor for a new approach.

I find the choice of your second link somewhat ironic as it is a post by Amir responding to Jack, a wonderful member who left the forum.

You're welcome, Peter. Yes, we miss Jack and he should come back. If he left, as I have heard, because of a certain member, then this member should be banned forever by admin and Jack invited back.

In any case, I like Amir's post in that second link because he points out that things actually have become better at WBF, regardless of naysayers. This includes those on that silly thread at AudioShark, a forum that otherwise is quite nice, but I personally find it more interesting here, which is a matter of taste of course.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I find Amir's frustration pretty understandable. And while that frustration has shown a couple of times, overall, I think he has handled a tirade of substance-free denial and attack pretty well. Above we have a post claiming that the test is flawed because the amp was insufficient to drive some of the speakers, from someone who doesn't even know which amp was used. When challenged to put some substance behind his claim, he insisted that Amir provide the evidence. Frustrating indeed. You'd get booted off the high school debate team for such nonsense.

In any case, it is the balance of the two points of view that makes WBF interesting for me, and Amir is the source of that balance. I have no interest in the head-nodding and discussion-limiting of hydrogenaudio, and even less in the tyrannical rule of aududiophile wisdom found on such places as Audioasylum. This is it for me. My only audio forum. And the threads that talk about science and listening are the ones that interest me most. I wouldn't be here without Amir, and I suspect for some of you that sounds like an added benefit.

Tim

 

[PeterA]

In any case, it is the balance of the two points of view that makes WBF interesting for me, and Amir is the source of that balance. I have no interest in the head-nodding and discussion-limiting of hydrogenaudio, and even less in the tyrannical rule of aududiophile wisdom found on such places as Audioasylum. This is it for me. My only audio forum. And the threads that talk about science and listening are the ones that interest me most. I wouldn't be here without Amir, and I suspect for some of you that sounds like an added benefit.

Tim

Tim, I appreciate this observation, and I too, see the benefit of the two site co-founders coming from two such distinct approaches. Perhaps that is why this site is so successful.

There is the Objective and Subjective approaches, but there is also music and gear. Lots to discuss.

Would you like to see a new thread started asking the question I posed before, namely, "what does audio science not tell us and what more are researchers hoping to learn"? Perhaps I am not the best member to start such a thread. I am sure someone else can better phrase the appropriate question.

 

[ddk]

I am reading this exchange and noticing the stark contrast in their approaches. It makes me reflect about what each has written about his own approach to the audio hobby. The approaches appear to be vastly different.

Many have read with much interest Steve's very enthusiastic "One Amigo" thread about his visit to hear David's system. The fabulous turntable collection, anchored by the ultra rare American Sound table, those vintage horn speakers, the current Lamm tube amplifiers, and the great analog music collection. This must surely represent one of the best examples of what audio science has achieved, and I am sure, many people would love to hear this system.

Contrast that to Amir's approach and the description of his system and digital music collection. With the expertise of Harman research and the serious personal journey upon which Amir embarked to better understand audio science and his own abilities to identify through rigorous testing methods the most accurate, pleasing and "musical" components available, Amir's system must also represent one of the best examples of what audio science has achieved, and I am sure, many people would also love to hear this system.

Beyond the obvious analog/digital and vintage/contemporary differences, I think it would be fascinating to hear some well recorded and very familiar music on both systems and listen to how they differ in their approaches to music reproduction. Imagine being able to do both unsighted, quick listening tests and also longer term sighted listening. It would be an audiophile's dream.

Could we, with any degree of accuracy, determine which system more closely reproduces both what is on the original recording and also which sounds more like a real acoustic musical event? Would they be equally enjoyable in the long term? And could we, by listening to these two systems, better understand what audio science can explain about sound?

Dear Peter,

I wish that these exchanges were as worthwhile and sophisticated as you put it, unfortunately they're not! For the most part is a nonsensical back & forth, simple and inconsequential. Sorry to bore everyone but here it is again;

1- I stated that the speech in this particular video has a strong marketing aspect to it and nothing more.

a- The entire talk is about Harman and Harman's technology.

b- Competitors, money and markets are openly referenced.

c- Relative value is discussed.

d- Talk ends with a $2k Harman product declared as a giant killer and perhaps even the best speaker in the world.

e- its published on YouTube for mass consumption

This has nothing to do with anyone's integrity or the value of their research. Everything was said by Dr. Toole yet Amir seems to have a problem with my marketing statement and until now aside from accusations he has not come up with any facts that my statement is incorrect, besides look who these people are.

2nd part is my comments regarding the flaws of a particular test and the speakers selected for that particular test. Amir has the picture and maybe he'll put it up for reference again.

These were my exact comments as to why I made the statement,

- A top of the line wide dispersion theater speaker, efficient and an easy 4 or 8 ohm load, the JBL 800 Array which can easily driven with a SET amp.

- vs the middling ML, a difficult to drive narrow electrostatic, dipole speaker with multiple known flaws and a funky curve fed by a wimpy amp, set up in the middle of a large room, to the side of the of centrally positioned star of the show.

- vs the B&W, power hungry and an extremely difficult load fed by an inadequate amplifier. I don't about know how it rates as a mono speaker but I do know that its very setup sensitive and its dispersion abilities can't compete with a easy to locate wide dispersion theater horn designed for the task.

I'm trying to figure out if Amir is simply in disagreement that the test has flaws or actually saying that our hands on unscientific experiences worthless because he thinks so or is the subjective assessment of the speakers, the electronics and the methodology is incorrect. If its the latter then he can easily bring up the data and scientifically prove that I'm wrong. If its the former, well...

For the record, this is only one test in question and not an entire body of research unless this particular test is pivotal to that research.

david

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Do you really want me to start another thread? Perhaps my threads have driven away and frustrated enough members already.

It was not you, so you should not regret anything about what you have done. You were trying to be genuinely helpful and informative to others, and you could not have predicted the chaos. I don't know if the idea for another thread has any value. As you said, another spinoff of this one went into la la land, again unpredictably. But, there seem to be too many conflicting layers of this subject all at once from everywhere, many totally irrelevant. That is confusing, frustrating and irritating. Odd that digital aficionados do not rumble into vinyl threads to try to discredit the technology or the participants, or vice versa.

Everyone seems to want to get their opinion in regardless of relevance or duly considered thought on the matters being discussed. Others just like to throw bombs and provoke. Others prefer to complain about the dynamic, as if someone was holding their feet to the fire to even read it or participate. Others need to make big statements about their leaving, as if it mattered to anyone but them.

It is much more of an education on some negatives of human nature and the unruly tendencies of web forums, given participant anonymity, than it is illuminating about audio science. I have seen far worse elsewhere. But, we have learned a few useful things about audio here and there through this thread. Unfortunately, that was not enough given the chaos and agendas.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think that particular issue may be a bit raw at the moment, but it'll come back around.

 

[Orb]

Your understanding is incorrect. In an ABX test, you have two known samples, A and B. You are then presented one of them at random ("X") and you are asked to tell whether it is A or B. All you are doing there is showing whether you can identify X as being A or B. If there is an audible difference to you between A and B, then you can identify X as being one of them. If not, you can't.

Loudspeakers are different sounding to everyone. Therefore if you put two of them in an ABX test, everyone would be able to guess what X is, confirming what we already know. That is the fact that they sound different. And at any rate, the results of ABX tests is binary. Either you could reliably identify X as A or B, or not.

Loudspeaker preference tests as run by Dr. Toole, Olive and crew are preference tests. They play each loudspeaker and ask the listener to score how good they think they are. The testing is double blind. But the mere fact that it is double blind in no way or shape makes it ABX.

I think an interesting speaker test would be investigating the audibility of a FR notch that is a fraction of an octave, it would still be large in terms of the FR it covers but what is interesting is how often listeners do not pick up on this behaviour in speakers that have them - specifically though we are talking with music and only with music.
This would be both an ABX and also additional preference test.
It could be done in the digital domain or simulated without using the speaker, but I would be keen to understand just how well we pick up such speaker behaviour (usually these happen anywhere from 2khz to 10khz with the speakers that have them) before looking to simulate/model (may need to consider phase and other complexities which is why I would think starting with the speaker makes sense).

In a similar fashion, we see severe swings with headphones and also large transducer pair errors when measured using the ITU ear setup, and for ones that are said to be transparent and neutral - not many are truly excellent.
Just to add, yeah I appreciate the Harman work mentioning the smooth FR/good dispersion, this is looking at a specific trait-behaviour that is quite narrow (when considering octave/hearing summing/etc) in scheme of things but severe.
Cheers
Orb

 

[ddk]

No, you claimed it wasn't. That's now obviously specious. Your claim of a mismatch is not based on any fact, as you don't even know what amp was used.

No what? Don't divert, are you stating that the Proceed amp was a good match to the B&W or not? There's nothing scientific about suspicion, prove me wrong about the amp scientifically if you will.

Not so much with the test per se, as with some of the conclusions drawn. I discussed this with Dr Olive directly, not via any proxies.

Wow, this cryptic reply is all you come up with after jumping on everyone's neck and demanding scientific proof? Any details about your objections?

And I certainly didn't need to impugn Dr Tooles character, as I allowed my argument to stand on its own merit.

Good, because no one else has impugned Dr. Toole here. But you can understand if we all demand proof of your argument having any merit or if you have an argument.

david