Burn-in: Real Or Imagined??? - Page 14 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #391 of 665 Old 01-04-2009, 05:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

Re blind testing of speakers

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/some_reminiscing/P0/

of course extremely hard to do for us mere mortals!

long story short, a set of speakers he had developed and was ready to take to market turned out to be extremely poor when tested blind, and against the competition.

Take TWBAS for example. I mean who would NOT be impressed upon seeing and hearing it, all the while completely aware of the components and their cost and reputation.

May only be me, but I wonder how it would stack up if done blind. Of course it would not be able to be done....the NRC only 'swap' speakers don't they (ie all would share a common front end) so even on that level it makes it harder to set up such a test.

Guess I am more interested in this than most as my speakers are DIY (hey, they're damned good!!- how else can I justify my thinking I have a right to post in this exalted section of the forum??heh heh).

Still, as good as I think they are, for all I know they might not stack up at all against the 'opposition' of done blind.

Would love to somehow do a test like that!

Thanks for the link. I was still at NRC in 1991 when David and Neil Muncey came to NRC to listen to his prototype speakers double-blind for the first time. I probably set up the test and/or was a listener. It's always humbling to evaluate double-blind a speaker (particularly your own), which you think is good, only to find out it's not as good as you thought. It happened to me at NRC when my own speakers were surreptitiously put into a test and I rated them last -- after living with them for 6 years. We tend to adapt very quickly to minor flaws in a loudspeaker, and only hear them when given the opportunity to compare them within the context of much better speakers.

This is why in my opinion certain audio manufacturers used to insist that you never demo their speakers in the room with other speakers in the room because they knew that A/B tests are more sensitive than single stimulus tests.

Cheers,
Sean Olive
My Audio Blog
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #392 of 665 Old 01-04-2009, 05:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
i am one of the staunchest advocates for blind testing.

As an example of what i was referring to above.

i went to the house of a friend to listen to his system. i brought a Smaart testing rig with me.

we listened for a while. i thought i heard something that might need correcting, ran a est and saw what i heard. we corrected to get rid of it.

test gear tells us what we heard.

the friend in this case preferred things about halfway between where it started and where it ended up.

his ears told him what he liked.

if i was testing some "thing" then personally if there are no controls in place, all i can say was if i liked it. i cannot say if it was better or worse. nobody can trust their ears.

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #393 of 665 Old 01-04-2009, 05:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post


This is why in my opinion certain audio manufacturers used to insist that you never demo their speakers in the room with other speakers in the room because they knew that A/B tests are more sensitive than single stimulus tests.

AB tests are also far more useful due to the extremely short auditory memory we have when talking about subtle differences.

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #394 of 665 Old 01-04-2009, 06:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

In your estimation Sean, and I guess without naming names, how well do the general crop of upper 5 figure and 6 figure speakers achieve the goals of even FR response coupled with broad, even dispersion?

When you say upper 5 and 6 figure do you mean $5000 and $6000 (a pair) speakers? I know $300-$500 dollar loudspeakers that have very good frequency response, and $11k speakers that have horrendous frequency response.

Unfortunately, the price of a loudspeaker does not guarantee it will have good performance. Just look at Loudspeaker M in my article, which cost $11k a pair.

Cheers,
Sean Olive
My Audio Blog
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #395 of 665 Old 01-04-2009, 06:13 PM
 
oneobgyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Danville, California
Posts: 8,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

i am one of the staunchest advocates for blind testing.

As an example of what i was referring to above.

i went to the house of a friend to listen to his system. i brought a Smaart testing rig with me.

we listened for a while. i thought i heard something that might need correcting, ran a est and saw what i heard. we corrected to get rid of it.

test gear tells us what we heard.

the friend in this case preferred things about halfway between where it started and where it ended up.

his ears told him what he liked.

if i was testing some "thing" then personally if there are no controls in place, all i can say was if i liked it. i cannot say if it was better or worse. nobody can trust their ears.


I remember the day well. It was my system and I did prefer settings as you indicated
oneobgyn is offline  
post #396 of 665 Old 01-04-2009, 07:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
terry j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

I probably set up the test and/or was a listener.

I did wonder about that!

I was going to ask you whether or not IYE people often had 'epiphanies' as a result of dbt's. The above is an example were, almost by definition, he was simply unable to deny the results.

But is it always that way? (From what I can gather the test setups often involve trained listeners, rather than joe public, so that in itself would not be conducive to the average audiophile coming to 'new beliefs', simply because they cannot participate)

The reason I ask is, sigh, whenever a discussion about cables comes up one of the common objections is (somehow, still to fully understand the point) that dbt's are poor tests in some cases, and skew the results.

Indeed, so strongly can that viewpoint be held that (paraphrased) I've seen it said that 'if I did not hear the difference in a dbt then I know the dbt is flawed'.

I mean, where do you go from a position like that??? Any debate or rational discussion is impossible from an a priori 'decision' like that.

Hence the wondering about any big changes in viewpoints such as David Moultons above. If anyone would have seen peoples reactions to their stable datums being rocked it would be someone like you.

(BTW, have a browse around his site, it is a great place to while away a few loose moments)
terry j is offline  
post #397 of 665 Old 01-04-2009, 07:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

I did wonder about that!

I was going to ask you whether or not IYE people often had 'epiphanies' as a result of dbt's. The above is an example were, almost by definition, he was simply unable to deny the results.

But is it always that way? (From what I can gather the test setups often involve trained listeners, rather than joe public, so that in itself would not be conducive to the average audiophile coming to 'new beliefs', simply because they cannot participate)

The reason I ask is, sigh, whenever a discussion about cables comes up one of the common objections is (somehow, still to fully understand the point) that dbt's are poor tests in some cases, and skew the results.

Indeed, so strongly can that viewpoint be held that (paraphrased) I've seen it said that 'if I did not hear the difference in a dbt then I know the dbt is flawed'.

I mean, where do you go from a position like that??? Any debate or rational discussion is impossible from an a priori 'decision' like that.

Hence the wondering about any big changes in viewpoints such as David Moultons above. If anyone would have seen peoples reactions to their stable datums being rocked it would be someone like you.

(BTW, have a browse around his site, it is a great place to while away a few loose moments)

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Faith-based audio can be a hard habit to kick.

Cheers,
Sean Olive
My Audio Blog
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #398 of 665 Old 01-04-2009, 07:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Swampfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,711
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

When you say upper 5 and 6 figure do you mean $5000 and $6000 (a pair) speakers? I know $300-$500 dollar loudspeakers that have very good frequency response, and $11k speakers that have horrendous frequency response.

Unfortunately, the price of a loudspeaker does not guarantee it will have good performance. Just look at Loudspeaker M in my article, which cost $11k a pair.

Actually, I think he was referring to speakers above $75K!
Swampfox is offline  
post #399 of 665 Old 01-04-2009, 07:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

Faith-based audio can be a hard habit to kick.

Dude... i am SO going to use that!

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #400 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 03:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

When you say upper 5 and 6 figure do you mean $5000 and $6000 (a pair) speakers? I know $300-$500 dollar loudspeakers that have very good frequency response, and $11k speakers that have horrendous frequency response.

Unfortunately, the price of a loudspeaker does not guarantee it will have good performance. Just look at Loudspeaker M in my article, which cost $11k a pair.

No, that's 4 figure and lower 5 figure. I'm talking about speakers that say are in the 50K and 100K+ range.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #401 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 04:19 AM
QQQ
AVS Addicted Member
 
QQQ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Sorry I am late to the party .

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

There are two constants always reported with burn-in:

1. Burn-in always improves the sound.

When you buy something for its sound, and that sound undergoes a change, it has just as much chance of changing for the better as it does changing for the worse. Yet burn-in always changes for the better.

How does burn-in know what your personal taste is so it can change the sound in that specific direction?

2. Burn-in automatically stops when it sounds right.

When the sound of something is changing, there's no reason it won't continue past what you like.

Not if they buy my new "stop the burn-in" device! It can be purchased here along with a plethora of other audiophile devices.

Edit: That link was a joke which I assumed would take people to a non-existent website. But evidently someone actually registered the URL. The link is www.theresasuckerborneveryminute.com And it actually takes you to en ebay site.
QQQ is offline  
post #402 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 07:50 AM
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

No, that's 4 figure and lower 5 figure. I'm talking about speakers that say are in the 50K and 100K+ range.

Duh....Sorry for the confusion. I'm used to hearing about 5-6 figure salaries -- not speakers

I've never had much opportunity to measure speakers in the $50k-$100k price range. The most expensive consumer speakers we make are the Revel Salon 2's ($22k a pair) and the JBL Everest ($60k pair), and they measure very well. The Everest are in our home theater (we have L/C/R Everest front channels) and they will easily hit 115-120 dB without you even realizing it because their distortion is so low.

If anyone has speakers in this price range, and they live in the LA area - I'd be happy to test them if you are willing to loan them for a day or two. I'll even take you out to lunch.

Cheers,
Sean Olive
My Audio Blog
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #403 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 08:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sean, it is great to have you posting here on AVS. I recently visited Detroit and made two stops. One was at Nousaine's house and the other was at Earl Geddes. Earl has some different ideas on loudspeakers and I must say I was very impressed by his home theater. What is your take on Earl's views on speakers especially with regards to his use of compression drivers and wave guides?

Also, I went to a class that Floyd Toole was teaching and he told me that indeed Consumer Reports was going to change their methods of loudspeaker testing-don't have a clue when, but did see that one of the people involved with their anechoic chamber made an open house invite on one of the google groups-Whoops, I see that Krabapple posted those links.
Randybes is offline  
post #404 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 08:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 430
The research that's been done at Harmon indicates that both trained and even untrained listeners generally converge to the same speaker rankings, i.e. a fairly high positive correlation coefficient. You've also indicated some of the reasons that can lead to a speaker being considered a good performer. Now, if we go back some years, you and Dr. Floyd Toole presented a paper in late '94 at the AES in San Fransisco. In this paper, you compared listener rankings of speakers when listened to blind and then sighted. What was found was sighted tests skewed listener preferences due to any number of conscious and subconscious biases such as price, appearance, reputation, etc. This does not surprise me as similar factors are exploited in other areas such as food to affect market share.

Given that these biases are so strong and the consumer makes their decision for speakers in a non-blind manner, what do you propose as a means and methodology for the consumer when evaluating speakers for personal purchase? At the very least you've got to do an A/B comparison I'd think at home or in the store, but I'd imagine the stores might not like the idea of acoustically transparent opaque screens being put up along with critical sound level matching. Also, since even trained listeners might fault smaller speakers because of a reduced lower frequency output, given that many or most are likely to be used with a subwoofer that makes up the bottom end, how can one evaluate those fairly?

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #405 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 08:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
QueueCumber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Farmer McGregor's Garden
Posts: 6,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

Duh....Sorry for the confusion. I'm used to hearing about 5-6 figure salaries -- not speakers

I've never had much opportunity to measure speakers in the $50k-$100k price range. The most expensive consumer speakers we make are the Revel Salon 2's ($22k a pair) and the JBL Everest ($60k pair), and they measure very well. The Everest are in our home theater (we have L/C/R Everest front channels) and they will easily hit 115-120 dB without you even realizing it because their distortion is so low.

If anyone has speakers in this price range, and they live in the LA area - I'd be happy to test them if you are willing to loan them for a day or two. I'll even take you out to lunch.

I'm envious of your front end setup!

Any advice on what general dB peak limits I should hit (before detectable distortion) with my Salon2s on 300 Watt monoblocks (Bryston Powerpac 300 SSTs), keeping in mind that the speakers are crossed over at 80 Hz (offloading the lower frequencies on all of them to subs)? There are 7 of them and they are fairly close to walls in a well treated plus equalized room.

"It is worse still to be ignorant of your ignorance."
-- Saint Jerome (374 AD - 419 AD)

My Home Theatre
QueueCumber is offline  
post #406 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 02:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber View Post

Thanks for the update.

I've added an update to the post based on new information I received today from Consumer Reports. See the Update notice on the bottom of the post.

I need to review their more recent test reports, as my subscription to CR has lapsed.

Cheers,
Sean Olive
My Audio Blog
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #407 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 02:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randybes View Post

Sean, it is great to have you posting here on AVS. I recently visited Detroit and made two stops. One was at Nousaine's house and the other was at Earl Geddes. Earl has some different ideas on loudspeakers and I must say I was very impressed by his home theater. What is your take on Earl's views on speakers especially with regards to his use of compression drivers and wave guides?

Also, I went to a class that Floyd Toole was teaching and he told me that indeed Consumer Reports was going to change their methods of loudspeaker testing-don't have a clue when, but did see that one of the people involved with their anechoic chamber made an open house invite on one of the google groups-Whoops, I see that Krabapple posted those links.

I haven't seen or heard Earl's setup but there is nothing inherently wrong with using compression drivers and waveguides as long as they are well-designed. We use wave guides and compression drivers (e.g. JBL Everest) in our products. I'ms ure I will hear more about Earl's setup since he and I are on a panel tomorrow about loudspeaker sound quality at the ALMA conference in Las Vegas.

Regarding your question on Consumer Reports: they contacted me today to tell me their latest speaker reviews since 2007 use a new model. See my update on my current blog post. I

Cheers,
Sean Olive
My Audio Blog
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #408 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 02:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kirkland, Wa
Posts: 653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

That's exactly what I meant. If you work for a consumer electronics company - preference is what matters.

To explain the underlying preferences, you also need to measure the salient perceptual attributes: timbre, spatial, distortion, and for these measurements trained listeners are generally needed. In my experience, the timbral or spectral differences among loudspeakers generally explain the largest proportion of variance in listeners' preference ratings. If you look at Klippel's 1990 paper, the lower directivity loudspeakers were preferred for their wider more enveloping auditory imagery. These experiments were done in stereo, so whether the same holds true for multichannel recordings remains to be seen.

Aww, Sean, let's not confuse all of this with actual fact, now

Of course, not all of us have equipment that can swap speakers fast enough and with little enough noise to do a good ABX test between speakers with accurate placement, etc.

?Eh?

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #409 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 02:29 PM
 
faberryman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Tonmeister2008,

Any plans to do similar testing on speaker cables, digital and analog interconnects, and power cords?
faberryman is offline  
post #410 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 03:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

I've added an update to the post based on new information I received today from Consumer Reports. See the Update notice on the bottom of the post.

I need to review their more recent test reports, as my subscription to CR has lapsed.


So, they told you:

Quote:


... since 2006 they no longer publish loudspeaker reviews based on their sound power model that I tested in 2004. I was told their new model for predicting loudspeaker sound quality uses a combination of sound power and other analytics to better characterize what the listener hears in a room.

OK, now watch me open a big 'ol can of worms

The most recent set of loudspeaker reviews I find on their website (I still have an e-subscription) from October 2008, includes these 'CR quick recommendations':

Quote:


Fine choices for stereo music or as the front pair in a surround-sound setup:
Infinity Primus P162, $260
Bose 301 Direct/Reflecting Series V, $330
Polk Audio RTiA1, $300
Sony SS-B3000, $95


Fine multichannel home-theater systems:
Harman Kardon HKTS 15, $295
Polk Audio RM705, $450
Bose Acoustimass 6 Series III, $700


Somehow I get the feeling that at least TWO of these recommendations will prove somewhat controversial.

(Personally I would be amused and delighted to find that Bose speakers actually measure comparatively well, as so much of audiophile Bose-hating conventional wisdom seems to be based on so little objective data.)
krabapple is offline  
post #411 of 665 Old 01-05-2009, 08:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post

Tonmeister2008,

Any plans to do similar testing on speaker cables, digital and analog interconnects, and power cords?

If all scientific probability and evidence points to there being no way for something to differ, putting anything more than a cursory effort into testing would be silly. and besides, then the debate would rage as to WHICH scientifically irrelevant cables to test.

And for the record... there is no such thing as a digital cable. even an Ethernet cable is an analog cable.

Wires pass signal. they do so with loss. how much loss and in which domain are the variables. and most importantly is if that loss is IN ANY WAY within the AUDIBLE RANGE.

there is a pretty good reason why EVERY SINGLE time a person finally puts together any type of cable test with controls, it comes out with no advantage. no results greater than chance. the only thing that is for sure is that no matter how complete the test, no matter how good the gear, somebody will say that they should have used ___ and it would have been night and day.

So to summarize...
tests that show no benefit to exotic cables... LOTS
tests that show exotic cables have benefit... NONE


I hate it when i go off like that.

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #412 of 665 Old 01-06-2009, 07:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

So, they told you:



OK, now watch me open a big 'ol can of worms

The most recent set of loudspeaker reviews I find on their website (I still have an e-subscription) from October 2008, includes these 'CR quick recommendations':




Somehow I get the feeling that at least TWO of these recommendations will prove somewhat controversial.

(Personally I would be amused and delighted to find that Bose speakers actually measure comparatively well, as so much of audiophile Bose-hating conventional wisdom seems to be based on so little objective data.)

I wonder if those "quick recommendations" are from their last speaker review before the 2006 change. I have a subscription but don't recall a thorough article that reviews speakers for a long time. Didn't check the models though to see if any were introduced more recently.
Randybes is offline  
post #413 of 665 Old 01-06-2009, 11:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Don't know if the report ever saw print, but it's clearly labeled 'October 2008 ' online.
It's also got an Overview, a Ratings table,a nd a Recommendations and Notes section, in adduition to the 'Quick Recommendations' sections, so it appears to be a full-fledged article.

The R&N section expands on the list of speakers; for Bookshelf speakers, they add
Pioneer S-HF41-LR and B&W LM-1 models. For 5.1 setups they add JBL SCS Series SCS500.5 and Infinity Total Solutions TSS-500. There's a pargraph devoted to each recommendation.

There are no measurement data/charts/graphs.
krabapple is offline  
post #414 of 665 Old 01-06-2009, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Don't know if the report ever saw print, but it's clearly labeled 'October 2008 ' online.
It's also got an Overview, a Ratings table,a nd a Recommendations and Notes section, in adduition to the 'Quick Recommendations' sections, so it appears to be a full-fledged article.

The R&N section expands on the list of speakers; for Bookshelf speakers, they add
Pioneer S-HF41-LR and B&W LM-1 models. For 5.1 setups they add JBL SCS Series SCS500.5 and Infinity Total Solutions TSS-500. There's a pargraph devoted to each recommendation.

There are no measurement data/charts/graphs.

Interesting. I don't visit the online site too often, but that does sound like it is a current review.
Randybes is offline  
post #415 of 665 Old 01-12-2009, 05:50 AM
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

The research that's been done at Harmon indicates that both trained and even untrained listeners generally converge to the same speaker rankings, i.e. a fairly high positive correlation coefficient. You've also indicated some of the reasons that can lead to a speaker being considered a good performer. Now, if we go back some years, you and Dr. Floyd Toole presented a paper in late '94 at the AES in San Fransisco. In this paper, you compared listener rankings of speakers when listened to blind and then sighted. What was found was sighted tests skewed listener preferences due to any number of conscious and subconscious biases such as price, appearance, reputation, etc. This does not surprise me as similar factors are exploited in other areas such as food to affect market share.

Given that these biases are so strong and the consumer makes their decision for speakers in a non-blind manner, what do you propose as a means and methodology for the consumer when evaluating speakers for personal purchase? At the very least you've got to do an A/B comparison I'd think at home or in the store, but I'd imagine the stores might not like the idea of acoustically transparent opaque screens being put up along with critical sound level matching. Also, since even trained listeners might fault smaller speakers because of a reduced lower frequency output, given that many or most are likely to be used with a subwoofer that makes up the bottom end, how can one evaluate those fairly?

That's a good question. The opportunity to audition different loudspeakers in retail stores - even under biased and uncontrolled conditions - is dwindling. Current loudspeaker specifications don't provide enough information to know if it sounds good or not. I think the industry needs to move into this century and develop more meaningful specifications that tell a consumer how the speaker sounds. I just returned from a panel discussion on this topic at ALMA and wrote about it in my blog.

Cheers,
Sean Olive
My Audio Blog
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #416 of 665 Old 01-12-2009, 06:00 AM
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randybes View Post

Interesting. I don't visit the online site too often, but that does sound like it is a current review.

I didn't fully answer your question. When comparing small satellite speakers or bookshelves on our speaker mover, we often use a common sub and cross each satellite over using an electronic cross-over. You could try this or simply audition the speakers without the subwoofer but with the highpass cross-over inserted (if you plan on adding a subwoofer).

I am always amazed at how much smaller the audible differences are between satellite speakers when you have a common subwoofer, which illustrates the importance bass differences play in your overall perception of the loudspeaker. In my model that predicts loudspeaker preference ratings, bass quality accounted for about 30% of the variance in loudspeaker preference ratings.

Cheers,
Sean Olive
My Audio Blog
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #417 of 665 Old 01-12-2009, 11:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

I didn't fully answer your question. When comparing small satellite speakers or bookshelves on our speaker mover, we often use a common sub and cross each satellite over using an electronic cross-over. You could try this or simply audition the speakers without the subwoofer but with the highpass cross-over inserted (if you plan on adding a subwoofer).

I am always amazed at how much smaller the audible differences are between satellite speakers when you have a common subwoofer, which illustrates the importance bass differences play in your overall perception of the loudspeaker. In my model that predicts loudspeaker preference ratings, bass quality accounted for about 30% of the variance in loudspeaker preference ratings.

Agreed and getting quality bass sound in a normal (or abnormal) room can be challenging.
Randybes is offline  
post #418 of 665 Old 01-12-2009, 11:26 AM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kirkland, Wa
Posts: 653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randybes View Post

Agreed and getting quality bass sound in a normal (or abnormal) room can be challenging.

And creating the same impression of bass that you get in a large venue with one subwoofer in a small venue can be downright (literally) impossible, too.

I'll say that having a sub is better than nothing, but no more.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #419 of 665 Old 01-12-2009, 03:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AndreYew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post

And creating the same impression of bass that you get in a large venue with one subwoofer in a small venue can be downright (literally) impossible, too.

Ooh. This one is controversial. Floyd Toole poo-poos the idea (of multichannel bass) in his book.

--Andre
AndreYew is offline  
post #420 of 665 Old 01-12-2009, 03:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 155
He doesn't pooh-pooh the idea of multiple subwoofers, though.
krabapple is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off