Originally Posted by kbarnes701
I take your points, but the anecdotal reports from many users in the Audyssey and Audyssey Pro threads suggest that the mid range comp is usually (not always) best left on. And this is from guys with very capable speakers. My own speakers are M&K S150s which I am sure you are familiar with, and they are certainly not deficient in any meaningful way, but when I have tried MRC on and off, I find I too prefer it left on. With it off, vocals assume a slight nasality that isn't there with it on. Of course, the room, the speaker placement, listening position etc may all have a bearing. The concensus seems to be "try it and see which you prefer".
Hmmm. So how does this work Keith? I have presented double blind published study
that demonstrates the mid-range was further damaged on $8,000 pair of speakers. This is how it did in the mid-range:
By putting that dip, the adjacent frequencies now stick out like a sore thumb, garnering that kind of result. RC4 was the speaker alone. Clearly it did better without the help from Audyssey.
This resulted in this set of complaints:
This is how the six people voted:
You see that deviation from mean (the bar around the dot) is almost non-existent showing that all listeners voted the same. indeed you see each person's vote on the right.
So no, the data does not say "try it and see which way you prefer." The data says that when tested blind, no one had a preference for it. They all uniformly derided what they heard.
From your vantage point, it seems that you want to throw all of that and instead go by anecdotal, sighted tests. Which you can. We are not here to force you to walk the plank of science
. Just don't tell us that is the consensus view. The consensus based on controlled and published testing is that this is a bad idea.
Originally Posted by kbarnes701
Yeah - what do those ABX tests prove anyway!
I don't know how you can cling to both sides of this argument in the same breath Keith. Either you believe in sighted bias or you don't. You make no mention of any blind tests backing your opinions in your FAQ and here, you keep referencing sighted results. Blind testing is not in your vocabulary when we are examining your views. It only surfaces when someone else's subjective results is being looked at.
I suspect like some you think you don't need blind testing for acoustics. You think because differences are audible, that bias takes a back seat. I can cite you research and listening tests that says that is wrong. But you will say you prefer to not read them. So here is a personal experience.
I was home testing a new AVR trying to see how good its auto EQ ("room correction") was. I ran through the setup and noticed that it made a nice improvement. Worried about sighted bias, I closed my eyes and pushed the remote button to turn the EQ on and off many times until I forgot what state it was in. Then I started to cycle on and off and paying attention to what I was hearing. I was relieved to detect all the improvements that I had heard sighted. I repeated this a few times and it was consistent. I left it in the "ON" state and opened my eyes. To my horror, I see that the display says EQ is off!!!
I did some more tested sighted and this time I realized the difference that I thought was there and pronounced, wasn't really.
I won't bore you with more stories of sitting in double blind tests of speakers and likewise being shocked at the outcome. So no, these are not tag lines we use to bludgeon audiophiles. We need to demonstrate that we live by them in real life and not just using them to plain argue.