Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 19

That's exactly my point. But if I had articles on my web site saying it's important to verify your speakers are wired correctly, would you think it reasonable for the likes of Amir to come after me with a hatchet demanding I either spend $100,000 to verify this with exhaustive blind studies or admit I'm blowing smoke and I'm no more ethical than Joe the wire vendor? This is the real issue. Not blind testing, but one (sales)man's inability to have a discussion without accusing others of fraud and incompetence.

So in your estimation there is nothing so obvious and self-evident that a test is not needed? (Though I do like your other post saying the stuff everyone accepts as true is often the most fun and most necessary to debunk.)

Let's take it one step further: How about a broken tweeter that buzzes at certain frequencies at loud volumes? I could argue that this is similar to the euphonic distortion from vinyl records that some people prefer. So am I wrong to say it's not necessary to blind test preference for working tweeters?

--Ethan

As with all tests, it depends on what you want to know. If you want to know for sure that your preference is based on sound quality alone, then yes, you have to do a blind comparison. (It's a test if you're a scientist wanting to measure a population; for an individual, it's just a comparison.) If you're willing to accept the fact (or just don't care) that your preference might be based in part on something like how your speakers look, or how classy the brand is, then a blind comparison isn't necessary. I suspect the vast majority of consumers don't care. But if you're a true audiophile, I should think you would care (even if it's not very practical to answer the question).

Not discussion but discredit he is trying to do. It's to those who exposed his deceptive sales pitch. It's no surprise, he even has a forum designed to bolster his sales.

Exposing amirm's deceptions is a double edged sward, at least on this forum. One edge cuts his smoke screen and lets the readers see what's behind it. The other side is facing you and can "cut" you via amirm's discredit crusade. Even though small in numbers, there are some that openly supports amirm on this forum.
"Amir,
Excellent posts! You are a shining light in what was becoming a very dark forum."
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1321783/please-explain-upsampling-dacs/90#post_20215092

"I am glad that you took this time to put him in his place. "
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1340051/seeking-education-about-those-ultra-expensive-interconnects/1440#post_20677194

I agree with you there. I don't debate an individuals preferential choice and it can be based on any number of malfactors and as many malfactors as they wish. It just makes them a moron with preferences. As long as they stay in their own personal sandbox of stupidity it's not a problem. It's when they start throwing their sand of stupidity that I will debate against.

Don't worry about it Ethan. Amir blows so much smoke as to hide the fact that his talking points are often quickly blurted out (as in ADHD personality) and then the rest of the time trying to defend saying the wrong thing. The trick is to find the thing that will shut him up quickest.

In a thread about computer audio I postulated that if you have a dedicated computer for playing your ripped CD's you need not install anti-virus. Amir went on and on how bad of an idea this is. I invited Amir to a Virtual Machine running Windows 7. The base offer was:

1. There will be a folder on the network with an MP3 in it. If within 30 days you can delete, modify, add anything to that directory that he then had a point
2. If he could get to the internet in any way shape or form (simply display avsforum.com as example) then he had a point

I'll give you one guess where the conversation went after that. Talk is one thing. Walk is entirely another with Amir.

Lol. I wouldn't worry about him. He believes so much in cable burn in that he wouldn't let me send him two sets of line level cables. Two burned in and two not randomly labeled with the label key stored in an encrypted and password protected zip file. Now Amir will come in and try to poke holes in this never minding the fact that JPS sends out burned in cables.


Edited by Jinjuku - 10/3/12 at 10:59am

No? Pretty definite there.

Look, I am starting to think I am doing a terrible job of explaining myself, apologies all. Unless of course you are mistaking the two very different cases, the personal preference (inviolate) and the general preference. I would have thought I was clear about it being that latter, but maybe not.

Same with the harmon studies on speaker preferences, 'in general listeners prefer smooth accurate and extended FR with even dispersion or power response'...or whatever the more accurate statement is. Not for one second does that ever say everyone will like that, like any statistical group there will be a Bell curve with either end of the spectrum present. The majority will, however lie in the middle of that curve.

The interesting thing about that is when repeated sighted, there will be a very different result. We all know that. So if sound quality is the only basis a person wants then they need to at least be aware of the findings blinded.

We all accept those studies and 'act' upon them in some way, if only intellectually (how can we realistically test different speakers ion out own room blind, well we can't).

So here, in this current 'debate' we have the analogous (now narrowed down) posit...'FR's are best absorbed, and most prefer them absorbed'. That is stated as a general preference as opposed to a personal preference, and as such can and maybe should be tested. As always, we will find a Bell curve with the outliers on either side, but we can also draw general population conclusions about that premise.

You may still stick with your answer of 'No', and if so all I'll say is I don't agree that it is not needed (if need can ever be applied to audio) or that it would not produce useful answers.

Look, for all I know the result could come back positive, I am not for a second saying it is wrong, all I am saying is that it is as valid a thing to test in audio as testing speakers blind (or cables, or amps) and for all we know could turn up results that make us go 'well, waddya know, another 'everybody knows' bites the dust'.

Umm, are you suggesting I take up your challenge?

If that is true, then it is kinda very funny and might be one of those times when someone says something meaning it one way, and it turns out to be the best joke ever made even if only inadvertantly. We all know those occasions!

I think I'll pass on that particular challenge if it is alright with you.


Yeah, I agree with you. The learning however can only really be effective when the debate itself is effective and free from emotion and reaction. Once you see the snide comments and anger, innuendo etc coming in then you immediately know you are NOT in a situation where people are willing to learn. You see people digging in to the already entrenched opinions and that is that.

One of the really effective learning tools is to take the 'opposing' side. A powerful technique, not often used in life I'd hazard. You could very well walk away with not only a better understanding of the other argument, but a much better appreciation of your own, win win in my book.

I get it, and also get the point about it being a ready identifier in these here parts. Still, it becomes a habit dontcha reckon? Habit meaning it becomes a snide mindset which in itself prevents to some degree the honest exchange of viewpoints and data. We often proclaim grandly that we 'are trying to educate', yeah deep down I do think we are, but what we are not recognising is how ineffective we are being at educating with the snide undertones we use. I mean if education is the end goal then why are we unknowingly sabotaging that education?

It happens all the time in so many subtle ways. I mean, it simply 'just cannot be' that someone prefers vinyl over cd. Really, does it matter? It's a preference after all, it is no skin off my nose if HE prefers vinyl, it does not belittle my system or my ears if he does, just as much as if he loves avocado (that green slimy snot stuff haha). But no, 'they are used to and love the ritual, the cleaning of the album, the gentle placing on the table and lowering the needle, very akin to the drug users ritual actually!'....or.....'they prefer the lower fidelity and the distortions it brings'....or whatever.

Can't they simply prefer it? Where's the big deal in that?

Anyway, thanks so much for your response.


Hi ethan, first let me say something I have been meaning to say for a few posts now whilst I remember. It may have felt to you that I too have been hounding you or coming after you with a hatchet (?), sorry if so, but truly it has only ever been an 'intellectual' thing along the lines of 'why is an acoustic principle above being blind tested when all other audio matters are ripe for blind testing', summat like that.

What however I have not said during that is I applaud and acknowledge the wealth of diy info on your site, your complete willingness to share it with anyone. For that from here on out and for all eternity you shall get your reward in the land of milk and honey surrounded by a never ending supply of willing virgins. There could even be a menagerie of cats there for you too, let us know would ya? (not about the cats)

I think the 100 thou has been plucked out of thin air tho.

The direct question, or maybe questions, in a perfect world, or maybe another galaxy, do you think it worthwhile to test maxims in acoustics like 'it is generally preferred in the general population that FR point reflections are absorbed'. I mean even from an acoustician viewpoint surely such data is valuable? Would you also agree that data from a properly done study is better than anecdotal evidence?

After all, it is NOT like your sales would dry up, all we are talking about is the distribution of acoustic products, NOT that there should be no treatment at all.

To your specific questions to me. (we're trying to find a situation where blind testing is not needed) I get your point, I mean there SHOULD be situations where blind testing is not needed, but I am not sure your example is the one? I am not sure, especially when (again) we are talking general, not personal, preferences. As that is what we are idly curious about I don't think introducing broken speakers into the equation helps. Unless the question is 'do people generally prefer non broken speakers to broken ones'. spose then I'd agree with you they'd prefer non broken...maybe not the bose guys cause how could they tell .

But if we get away from broken speakers and move to a 'bad tweeter' (meaning a poor one), it rings like a bell at certain frequencies say. Well to the owner he might think that it 'brings out the detail that no other speaker does' or something. 'Ha, this speaker does not have David Gilmours glorious finale soaring our over the music like MINE does'..nahh the bloody tweeter just rings ya know. There's an interesting thought, maybe (as that is what he listens to) he'd still pick it in a blind test and mark his up and the other down. I mean it IS a sonic trait in this example, it is there to be heard.

Oh well then, a perfect example of personal preference not being applicable to the general. As we know, there are always outliers.

Anyway ethan to me at least this has only ever been an interesting facet of human nature to explore, nothing at all personal with you, your products or your business practice.

peace.

FWIW, as much as I find the personally directed attacks against Ethan distasteful, I think this is an interesting topic. I even started a thread about just this subject. After many pages, there was really only one reasonably practical suggestion offered (by sanjay I think), though unfortunately not readily available, to investigate preference reliably and unbiased on a personal level.

Also, FWIW, I think Ethan could probably be more neutral about the issue on his website without really affecting sales. No one denies that treatments can certainly be beneficial, the only real debate here is what to put where. Isn't that always the question? Maybe people could be suggested to try more diffusion on the sides rather than absorption to see if they like it, or more absorption on front and rear walls than they had considered, but they would still need the products. The only problem is that Ethan has written a fair amount of primers on acoustics and it might not be easy to make this change quickly. In any case, Ethan has always been about trying to inform his customers and help them make the right choice. I'd guess most of them don't have "well furnished rooms" but rather something a bit barren and actually are in need of some treatment somewhere, as most enthusiasts serious enough about the hobby to consider installing treatments either have a dedicated theater type room or have a single chair sitting in the middle of their precious listening room! And despite Amir's apparent ravings to the contrary, I think practically all spaces can be improved with proper measurement and proper treatment, even if the starting point is pretty danged good.

My hatchet comment was definitely not directed at you!

Understood, and I never said such tests cannot be useful. But I did point out that Harmon's own preference testing showed listeners prefer flat and accurate, so I don't see why that can't be extended to the room itself.

I seem to recall that Harmon spent much more than $100,000 on their room with rotating speaker platforms etc. This is why I have asked Amir repeatedly to describe in detail a test setup he considers adequate. Only then can the cost in dollars and hours be assessed.

I'm not interested in the general population nearly as much as people who claim that audio quality is highly important to them. I don't visit cooking or car forums and tell people their stereos will sound better with acoustic treatment. This is why I refer to the overwhelming preference among professional audio engineers for reflections to be absorbed. If you're a hi-fi buff and you want to experience what the producers and artists heard as they prepared their masterpieces for you, then you too should listen in a room without reflections.

Speaking of which, the results are in at 17 to 3:

To RFZ or not to RFZ

You can read through the posts for more detail.

Of course.

Sure it does, because I'm trying to get people to state clearly where they draw the line for what is so obvious and self-evident that testing for preference is not needed. Sort of like "We both agree you're a whore, now we're just haggling over the price." I see little difference between a broken speaker that rings at certain frequencies and a "broken" room that does the same.

This is the appeal of some piezo tweeters. They add a sizzle around 8 KHz that is unnatural, but to the untrained ear sounds "hi fi." I'll extend that to vinyl records too. The slight grunge is mistaken by some as added clarity they feel is missing from digital recordings. Google "Aphex Aural Exciter."

--Ethan

I have mentioned that many times, because it's a common question. My stock answer is that diffusion at reflection points might be preferred in a large and wide room, but when I tried it in my 25x16 foot living room diffusion sounded as bad as a bare wall. I then tell people to try it both ways if they have a way to do that.

--Ethan

Since this thread seems to have morphed into reflections I have a question. Does anyone think the number of channels and speakers has anything to do with preference of early reflections? As it seems the number of channels and speakers in a home theater keeps increasing and at least the possibility of Dolby Atmos one day becoming a home theater offering, it would seem that early reflections might be a very bad thing....or not?
Edited by Randy Bessinger - 10/4/12 at 10:20am

I think it should matter. There was a thread I started discussing just this question. Others have reached the conclusion that as channels increase a massively diffusive environment may be the ideal solution. I believe toole made a comment that preference for reflections may indeed dissolve in a multichannel environment where the system added its own multidirectional cues. I'd have to search for the specific quote. On the other hand, I believe it was Sanjay who found that even with multichannel sound he preferred lateral reflections over relying on the processing (contrary to what I've stated for years... that your room is a surround processor and you're better off allocating that task to a device designed to do that in a predictable and controllable manner). I don't recall however if this was only with 7 channels and logic7 or if he found the same with wides and something like Neo:x or auydessey dsx.

Conceptually, if you place speakers at +/- 60 deg, in a more absorptive environment, using more narrow and controlled dispersion speakers, and send a copy of the left and right signals to the left and right wides, respectively, with control over the delay and gain of those copies, you can simulate rather well the effect of a clean reflection from a wide dispersion speaker having perfect off axis response.

Indeed, perhaps this is the most practical way to test ones own preferences, and perhaps also the ideal way to design a room as you could tweak this "reflection" to taste. This is of course the basis of dsx but controlling natural reflections is key to allowing for end user control.

Might make for interesting research as well. You can also easily investigate preference for more nuanced effects, such as off axis response by modifying the frequency response of the reflection. You can even more realistically simulate a natural reflection by adding in a more delayed and attenuated copy of the contralateral channel to appproximate the crosstalk present from opposite sidewall reflections found in true reflective environments. You could compare preference for levels of such crosstalk and then tweak your own system to taste.

Great post Bigus. Thanks for your thoughts.

Ethan, I thought this post from the other site was relevant (you were on this thread too): http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6047919-post6.html

So the question is: Why wouldn't the typical end user prefer a pleasing sound (for both video soundtrack *and* music listening) as opposed to brutal unerring accuracy? The latter being important to getting actual work done, and IMO very little else.

I do agree with Amir and his points. Toole is pretty hard to argue with unless you have studies to counter his studies. That said, I think back to some things Carver said years ago about recreating a space with enough loudspeakers and I think that at some point you would not want early reflections. At that point you are recreating whatever space you want that is in the recording. I think that was part of Yamaha's early research and presence speakers. As I recall, they recommended a more "dead" room for it to give best results. That doesn't mean that envelopment is not preferred, it just means people like it more than a dead room. However, you are not recreating any space. You are just using "your" space. I do believe as technology moves forward, we will have cues in the recordings that will be better at recreating a space than some present Dolby (not Atmos), Lexicon, extraction algos. I really still like what Yamaha tried to do and still does to some extent. I remember reading about what Yamaha, JVC and Lexicon did in the early years with surround. It was fun stuff and continues to evolve.
Edited by Randy Bessinger - 10/4/12 at 1:59pm

I agree as this has been my findings. I actually use a Yamaha AVR to upmix 2ch music into surroundsound. I do use its front presence channel as a surrogate wide channel though.

My basic approach is to use plenty of absorption to minimise room reflections and then reintroduce the ambience with the wide and side surround speakers. I find it works really well and straight 2ch playback sounds underwhelming in comparison.

Speaking of conspiracies, just a question on expensive HDMI cables and jitter. Some people claim that jitter in HDMI can affect audio clarity. Is this true? Any evidence for or against this claim? I know you can experience audio break up if the connection is unreliable or a snowy picture, but can jitter affect audio timbre?

Yes, and I made the same point there that I've made here many times, that nobody seems to consider: Whether side-wall reflections are desirable or not depends in large part on the size of the room.

I've explained that here too countless times. Music and movies are mixed in accurate rooms to sound good to the producers and engineers in those rooms. They tweak the music levels and EQ, and add reverb to sound good to their experienced ears. If you want to hear what they heard, and what they intend for you to hear, then you need a similar room. The notion that music is made richer sounding with the addition of small-room reflections is IMO naïve. It's actually the other way around - the large sounding ambience in the recording is drowned out by the small-sounding ambience of your own room.

--Ethan

There's a ton of evidence that this is a conspiracy by vendors to scare you into buying their latest low-jitter products. Start here:

Artifact Audibility Report

Further, even if jitter was a real problem, which it usually isn't, buying expensive wires won't help. The jitter occurs in the gear.

--Ethan

Here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1326576/usb-vs-hdmi-for-2ch-audio-to-receiver One seller tried his marketing in disguise but was exposed. Then he went on a discredit crusade against those who exposed him.

Of course jitter can be audible if its high enough. But the best evidence we have is that jitter in consumer audio equipment doesn't reach that level. Expect a lot of handwaving and diversion from the usual suspect, but that's the bottom line.

So what is the jitter related to? Whether the cable works or not? Is it responsible for the snowy picture, audio drop outs, audible pops that you sometimes get over longer distances, or is the jitter unrelated?

It is possible. I have argued the point so many times that I decided to write another article on that which got published in Widescreen Review magazine. It garnered the highest interest of any article I have written there (in a positive way). http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/DigitalAudioJitter.html

I also had an organized debate with Ethan on the topic on WBF forum. He post the outcome of that from his vantage point here:

BTW, if you are still not convinced that cables can play a role here, here is a more gear-head explanation of it by a (high frequency) DAC design engineer: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awhatsbestforum.com+Reflections+and+DACs&rlz=1C1SNNT_enUS374US375&oq=site%3Awhatsbestforum.com+Reflections+and+DACs&sugexp=chrome,mod=9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Click on the first link on the search.

Okay, but there is no evidence published in any peer reviewed journals, correct?

Not that I know of. But that's probably because the people who edit peer-reviewed journals, and the people who do psychoacoustic research generally, recognize that this is a made-up problem, not a real one.

Or you have personal experience that counters some of his conclusions. If you're going to follow Toole's advice and set up a listening room based on your preferences, then you have to be careful not to let others tell you what your own preferences are. As the number of speakers keeps increasing, how audible do you think reflections will continue to be compared to sound coming directly from all those speakers?

As mentioned by Arny many times HDMI jitter is multiple times lower than what we get through analog. I know this is not question, but I thought it was an interesting piece of knowledge when I first heard.

There was a paper written by some Japanese guys I think. There is also this Dolby paper. I know Chu has the Dolby paper. I shared the former one here in AVS. Guess who attacked me for committing that sin?

What evidence? I thought you were looking for justification to say that it is impossible for the cable to make a difference. The data I gave you shows that as a matter of engineering, you can't say that. The graph by the way in my article on cable induced jitter, came from an Audio Engineering Society recommendation for digital audio, "AES information document for digital audio engineering — Guidelines for the use of the AES3 interface": http://tvit.org/GuyCD/Reports/Conference/aes-2id-1996.pdf

It doesn't get more peer reviewed than that .

So no, as a matter of engineering you cannot say it is impossible for the cable to make a difference in audio. It can. You can then wave your hands on whether it is audible given the fact that there are no listening tests of any kind and hope to win the point that way. But not with your stated argument of "it is digital so if video is right, audio must be perfect." Video uses fixed pixel timing (the pixels don't move) so it does not suffer from the same issues as audio (where samples can move in time and create distortion).