AVS Forum banner

41 - 60 of 5694 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
well I guess so...most people know what they like and dont need science to tell them


The thing is they don’t. Professional violinist always say the old manufactured violins sound better than new ones. They took violinist at the top of their field and did A B tests. There was a slight preference for the new manufactured but it was mostly random.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,941 Posts
The thing is they don’t. Professional violinist always say the old manufactured violins sound better than new ones. They took violinist at the top of their field and did A B tests. There was a slight preference for the new manufactured but it was mostly random.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Further evidence to someone that rejects evidence is pointless.

But hopefully there will be those that will come upon threads like this with an open mind and learn something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,520 Posts
I posted a published paper that dismisses the op's statement by the guy that wrote the paper that op is using...confusing.
How are you arriving at that conclusion? The link you posted, at least according to the introduction(couldn't read it all), was comparing speaker response to headphone response. The OP in his first post linked a blog by Sean Olive, one of the authors of the paper in your link, where he says:

There are clear visual correlations between listeners' loudspeaker preferences and the set of frequency graphs. Both trained and untrained listeners clearly preferred the loudspeakers with the flattest, smoothest and most extended frequency response curves...
and

It is both satisfying and reassuring to know that both trained and untrained listeners recognize and prefer accurate loudspeakers, and that the accuracy can be characterized with a set of comprehensive anechoic measurements
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
I would assume that is why there is a Harmon curve because their findings agree with you. I want a speaker that measures flat because it shows accuracy. I will always season to taste regardless of what others tell me. My money, my home, my sound. I find the science interesting, but much of it is over my head. I didn't buy JBL for the science, but I am confident their science had a lot to do with me ending up as a customer. Likewise, McDonalds french fries are my favorite. I am sure there was some science that took place behind the scenes that keeps me coming back.


The fries used to be better when they were fried only in beef fat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Oppo Beta Group
Joined
·
10,883 Posts
You guys who keep referring to the "OP" do realize who the OP is in this case, right? He's not just some generic know nothing poster spewing nonsense.

many, many smart people have lost their shirts/bank rolls on science...
While there's certainly some truth to that statement, I would assert that many more smart and stupid people have lost their money or made fools of themselves by ignoring science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
I’ve been curious about Harman’s research relating to the following variables.

1) Take a speaker with ideal/accurate anechoic measurements and place it in the extremes of a live room and a dead room. Assuming the live vs. dead room will impact the frequency response at the listener’s ears, and assuming that the brain prefers a certain frequency response, could that same ideal/accurate speaker (from anechoic measurements) produce a different frequency response at the listener’s ears, based on the reflective and absorptive characteristics of the room? If the brain prefers a certain frequency response curve, how could the same ideal/accurate speaker (from anechoic measurements) be preferred in both the dead room and live room?

Said another way, if the brain prefers a specific curve at the listening position, is it possible that a non-ideal/accurate speaker (from anechoic measurements), could deliver closer to the preferred curve because of the absorptive or reflective characteristics of the room?

2) Now add in the variable of one's ears and the high frequency hearing loss that males of my age typically have :))). If the brain prefers a certain frequency response, but the ears have high frequency loss, could one prefer speakers (especially in an absorptive room) that are not ideal/accurate (from anechoic measurements) because they “compensate” for hearing loss (and room absorption), and deliver closer to the ideal/flat response that the brain prefers?

Not trying to start any arguments here – just looking to learn and discuss.


-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,520 Posts
You guys who keep referring to the "OP" do realize who the OP is in this case, right? He's not just some generic know nothing poster spewing nonsense.
Yes, and Kevin's time and participation here is much appreciated. You could make the case that he, Sean Olive, and Floyd Toole among many others are our version of rock stars. :)


Not trying to start any arguments here – just looking to learn and discuss.
Exactly what this forum is for. There are a lot of variables in the playback chain, so if you know going in what the speakers are doing as expressed by anechoic measurements, you can, through placement, setup, room treatments, EQ, etc..., get the response you want in whatever room you're in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,941 Posts
I’ve been curious about Harman’s research relating to the following variables.

1) Take a speaker with ideal/accurate anechoic measurements and place it in the extremes of a live room and a dead room. Assuming the live vs. dead room will impact the frequency response at the listener’s ears, and assuming that the brain prefers a certain frequency response, could that same ideal/accurate speaker (from anechoic measurements) produce a different frequency response at the listener’s ears, based on the reflective and absorptive characteristics of the room? If the brain prefers a certain frequency response curve, how could the same ideal/accurate speaker (from anechoic measurements) be preferred in both the dead room and live room?

Said another way, if the brain prefers a specific curve at the listening position, is it possible that a non-ideal/accurate speaker (from anechoic measurements), could deliver closer to the preferred curve because of the absorptive or reflective characteristics of the room?

2) Now add in the variable of ones ears and the high frequency hearing loss that males of my age typically have :))). If the brain prefers a certain frequency response, but the ears have high frequency loss, could one prefer speakers (especially in an absorptive room) that are not ideal/accurate (from anechoic measurements) because they “compensate” for hearing loss (and room absorption), and deliver closer to the ideal/flat response that the brain prefers?

Not trying to start any arguments here – just looking to learn and discuss.


-
Read this carefully https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/113892136X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=BQSVBMH9KGG28WWH1EV5

The answers are in there
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts

·
Member
Joined
·
844 Posts
Since the 228BEs show better measurements through most of the FR range, particularly off-axis compared to the Salon 2, yet the Salon2 was preferred on average, should the explanation primarily be that the highs are rolled off (8K+?) in comparison? It seems to me the old NRC research showed a preference for rolled off highs for most people, so the only downside to the PerformaBe series is the tweeter is a little hot in the higher frequencies?
I don't know where the idea of the rolled off highs came from. I cannot remember ever saying it verbally or in print - I don't believe it. This in spite of the fact that the earliest listening tests used LPs that are not at all well behaved at any frequency, much less very high frequencies.

The evidence is published, and summarized in the attached figure: Figure 13.1 from my book. All that has happened in 30 years is that we now have better engineered drivers and systems. The performance targets are the same. FYI the "early refections" curves are very good predictors of steady-state room curves in normally reflective listening rooms.

It will be noted that the "idealized" steady-state room curve has eliminated the common dip around 2kHz caused by a slight directivity mismatch at the woofer/mid-to-tweeter crossover in most forward-firing systems. Ideally it should not be there, but because humans place the greatest importance on the direct sound for judgments of timbre it is not a major factor. Also, the off-axis radiation that includes the dip is delayed and attenuated compared to the direct sound and two ears and a brain figure it out - "dumb" omnidirectional mics do not. Equalizing the dip out of in-room steady-state measurements is a mistake - it degrades the direct sound.

The origin of the "idealized" curve is explained in Figure 12.4 in the book. It is the kind of steady-state room curve that is measured for loudspeakers that rate high in double-blind tests. It should not be assumed that equalizing a flawed loudspeaker to match the curve is an assurance of equally good sound. Directivity flaws in loudspeakers cannot be corrected by equalization, and resonances are difficult to identify in room measurements - it is in the book.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
I was trying to show with that link that the science in that study showed that listeners liked to adjust the speakers with higher bass and treble. maybe I read it wrong. and yes its very sweet to have the big dogs on these forums. I have nothing bad to say about them. or about their speakers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
I’ve been curious about Harman’s research relating to the following variables.

1) Take a speaker with ideal/accurate anechoic measurements and place it in the extremes of a live room and a dead room. Assuming the live vs. dead room will impact the frequency response at the listener’s ears, and assuming that the brain prefers a certain frequency response, could that same ideal/accurate speaker (from anechoic measurements) produce a different frequency response at the listener’s ears, based on the reflective and absorptive characteristics of the room? If the brain prefers a certain frequency response curve, how could the same ideal/accurate speaker (from anechoic measurements) be preferred in both the dead room and live room?

Said another way, if the brain prefers a specific curve at the listening position, is it possible that a non-ideal/accurate speaker (from anechoic measurements), could deliver closer to the preferred curve because of the absorptive or reflective characteristics of the room?

2) Now add in the variable of ones ears and the high frequency hearing loss that males of my age typically have :))). If the brain prefers a certain frequency response, but the ears have high frequency loss, could one prefer speakers (especially in an absorptive room) that are not ideal/accurate (from anechoic measurements) because they “compensate” for hearing loss (and room absorption), and deliver closer to the ideal/flat response that the brain prefers?

Not trying to start any arguments here – just looking to learn and discuss.


-
I really didn't 'get' the graphs or if they showed us if we would like 1 speaker better than another, but I have been hanging around the revel forum enough to know KV and co use listener results to determine the value different measurements provide in the real world. I still have my own reservations about the validity of the tests for the same reason you mention. My room $ucks and probably need speakers with woofers firing in 6 different directions to overcome the null i'm dealing with. I can say though, my salon 2's are exceptional at showing the differences between recordings and the good ones are hair raising. I heard both F228be and salon 2 in the same room, same gear, and same placement within parameters, and I think the cabinet build of the ultima, makes the difference. The salons do a better job of disappearing, close your eyes and point to the source? it's easier to locate the performa.

As to the actual listening panel testing room I think it is asking a bit much of KV to drag the spinorama over to each individuals house. Considering most folk never even heard of revel and everybody knows 'bose is best' I don't see the tests as a publicity stunt but actual attempts to make a better product, the workers for the accomplishment, the board for profit, maybe?

1 more idea, Is it possible to use room dimensions to determine a speakers reaction and then offer a custom tune, more elaborate than the toggle on the back of current models? (did I just prove i'm an idiot?)It would be horrible for resale, but if ya got it right wouldn't ya keep it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
well not getting too far over my head...revel salon 2's were favored over a better measuring jbl m2...so that alone throws this topic underwater
Even though John et al. took great pains for a blind comparison, I wouldn't make such a well defined and artless conclusion especially when it's used as evidence to wholesale dismiss peer-reviewed studies. Preferences weren't overwhelming and "better measuring" wasn't in all aspects of performance. There might be something to the "BBC dip" for off-axis while maintaining a non-dip on axis.

Yet I bought M2s after that contest when I could have bought Salons. I must be the dull ax in the shed. Do you think the results may have been different in a home theater venue vs mono audio? Both of those speakers are world class. I don't think there was a loser in the room. With that said, I will probably put Revels downstairs where I listen to audio more. I do prefer a dome tweeter for music most of the time but I want dynamics in my theater room.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,188 Posts
I’ve been curious about Harman’s research relating to the following variables.

1) Take a speaker with ideal/accurate anechoic measurements and place it in the extremes of a live room and a dead room. Assuming the live vs. dead room will impact the frequency response at the listener’s ears, and assuming that the brain prefers a certain frequency response, could that same ideal/accurate speaker (from anechoic measurements) produce a different frequency response at the listener’s ears, based on the reflective and absorptive characteristics of the room? If the brain prefers a certain frequency response curve, how could the same ideal/accurate speaker (from anechoic measurements) be preferred in both the dead room and live room?-
Floyd Toole addresses this in his new book as another poster mentioned but what Toole has shown from research done at Harman, individuals are able to "listen through the room" so to speak. It's why you can hear a band at different venues and it still sounds very similar. They have done studies that compare the same speakers in different rooms and showed that while the preference ratings do go up or down based on the quality of the rooms acoustics, the speakers that are preferred are still preferred in better or worse rooms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
any studies show nearfield listening as a valid measure for performance? if a pair of speakers is preferred nearfield then they will be preferred at mlp?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,052 Posts
This appears to be an educational thread with a strong marketing undertone.

I fully agree that Revel is a great product (my small part time AV op has considered the line) as well as having respected industry staff.

But it is like Revel is the standard others are compared to in essence of this thread. At least that is my take.

Samsung/HARMAN has the $$$ to test as many speakers as they would like. Inside trading and accommodation deals are common.

Has any tested speaker ever “beat” a Revel? Is testing room and method tilted in anyway? Is the testing room part of the design department and engineering where Revel speakers are tweaked?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
Thank you Gooddoc. We do not have the personnel available to put speakers through our testing by request. However, feel free to make requests, and if we have them available, I will add them. I will be adding both Revel and other competitors as time permits, so you might find your request fulfilled without even asking.
Hi Kevin,

The JBL Studio 5 series have a pretty enthusiastic following on this forum, especially the 590s. Could these be added to the list?

Scott
 
41 - 60 of 5694 Posts
Top