AVS Forum banner

301 - 320 of 407 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,247 Posts
Thank god Ms. Spears takes it seriously!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,476 Posts
Discussion Starter #305

Quote:
Not to use too broad of a brush, but I applaud any company that takes full advantage (legally) of it's intended target market.

Jibberjabber, I actually agree but with a disclaimer....Great marketing departments know how to twist it just enough to not be called on it. Look at Monster, nothing they do is illegal but its down right insulting to our intelligence, good thing for them is the fact that the majority of people are ignorant about audio science (btw, that is not a bad thing either!!)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray /forum/post/16189971


Jibberjabber, I actually agree but with a disclaimer....Great marketing departments know how to twist it just enough to not be called on it. Look at Monster, nothing they do is illegal but its down right insulting to our intelligence, good thing for them is the fact that the majority of people are ignorant about audio science (btw, that is not a bad thing either!!)

Hence the phrase "vote with your wallet."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,476 Posts
Discussion Starter #307

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/16190288


Hence the phrase "vote with your wallet."

Sure Caveat emptor is my motto too actually! But we both know that ignorance doesnt stand a chance, you do not care and I do care about that. I want the consumers to be educated!


btw, We are getting off topic! I really want to keep discussion on measurements
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray /forum/post/16190391


Sure Caveat emptor is my motto too actually! But we both know that ignorance doesnt stand a chance, you do not care and I do care about that. I want the consumers to be educated!

As long as it's education devoid of bias (especially where Monster's involved). On this forum that's tricky, and for those that aren't used to the AVS MO, it might be hard to extricate the two.

Quote:
btw, We are getting off topic! I really want to keep discussion on measurements

Agreed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/16182615


Not to use too broad of a brush, but I applaud any company that takes full advantage (legally) of it's intended target market. If people want to spend money on looks, sound, name perception, or voodoo, fine. This is a free market, and since performance issues tend to be subjective form person to person, it's hard to disprove a lack of benefit for a given product.


Try as I might I cannot find an argument against this...
A part of me strongly supports the idea of making it very costly to be a fool. Were more of life like that we may have to suffer fewer fools.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by xgecko /forum/post/16190854


Try as I might I cannot find an argument against this...
A part of me strongly supports the idea of making it very costly to be a fool. Were more of life like that we may have to suffer fewer fools.

economic Darwinism
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,247 Posts
There will never be a shortage of fools according to scientific principles - nature abhors a vacuum therebye ensuring a steady supply of fools.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/16191235


There will never be a shortage of fools according to scientific principles - nature abhors a vacuum therebye ensuring a steady supply of fools.

Do quantum vacuum fluctuations create fool-antifool pairs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,600 Posts
Unlike matter/antimatter, unfortunately they don't annililate each other. Thus... the thread still exists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
First of all, I'd like to say that it is extremely difficult and often misleading to make comparisons between different speakers without the use of speaker mover to control positional effects. The positional effects can easily swamp out any true audible differences between the speakers, particularly if the measured differences among them are very small. I used to find that positional effects alone could change the preference rating of a loudspeaker by 20%. That is why Harman spent considerable money on a multichannel and in-wall speaker mover -- so the positional biases are removed from the test.


Secondly, you cannot correlate what you hear to what you measure unless you have comprehensive on and off-axis data like the kind we advocate. You could be hearing brightness in a loudspeaker that has a dip at 2-4kHz on-axis because of its off-axis response. The upper-treble brightness you are hearing could also be due to the 2-4 kHz dip since the dip could produce a release in upward masking - emphasizing the frequency range above the dip. In our listener training exercises, listeners commonly mistake dips as peaks located higher in frequency.


Comprehensive anechoic loudspeaker measurements combined with the right set of in-room measurements can usually explain what you are hearing.


Cheers

Sean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 /forum/post/16186409


Yep.


The elements of the performance that they are listening to are well, far above threshold of audibility, and they can hear what they need to hear, modulo ideas about particular instruments, without a good system.


Things like pace, rhythm, timing are characteristics that are well above threshold and can conveyed with 100-7kHz bandwidth and not the cleanest of signals.


The worst speaker in the world does not cause the violin player to sound like he or she has bad intonation, just maybe a bad violin, for instance.

Another way of looking at my proposition is that the musician is listening to himself through the reproduction mechanism. Let us assume a musician of the highest musicianship and highest integrity (a.k.a. he's a snob). He records a cut and while his performance is still fresh in his head he listens to the recording of himself which has been processed through the reproduction chain all the way through the speakers to his ears. I have intentionally frequency shifted up two notes worth. When I ask" is this what you played" he will say no. the question "is this the same as what you played?" is pretty loaded. relative to me when he listens to the playback he is listening for elements beyond my capacity. If it is his intention to communicate those elements and they are somehow "lost" and he is of the highest integrity he will say no. If he doesn't have the greatest in confidence in his memory he will want to re-record the passage on the assumption the loss of transmission was from his head to his trumpet.

when I was in highschool I went to a jazz festival and the headliner was Bill Watrous. there was a buzzing in the speakers and he kept glaring at the sound technicians to fix it. The reasons why he was angry about it only be speculated. Why would he care about the fidelity of the amplification?


My question was deliberately open to interpretation because I didn't want to bias what information content the listener was trying to detect. It is Yes or No answered because a binary response relative to me is in very similiar units. The question is simple enough so that all potential consumers can undergo the same testing procedure and understand the question as the musician. So when a consumer undergoes the evaluation and answers Yes and the musician answers yes, the units of the final transmission are the same. anything lost in the consumer is not the fault of the reproduction chain but lost from the consumer. However, the transmission from musician to consumer relative to me is 100%.

Where the psychoanalyst comes into play is that the test procedure has to have very carefully devised questions. Answering the questions the musican will be thinking of self to self, self to consumer to self, self to technician to self..etc. The consumer too has to understand the questions to result in the same units as the musician otherwise the test is inherently flawed.

(An interesting consequence of this is that relative to me I cannot create a 100% transmission mechanism from an english musician to a japanese consumer, but relative to an english/japanese translator the transmission mechanism can be 100%)


Where the Neural network scientist comes into play is that their expertise is in creating weighted values based on binary input. They also can create optimized search algorithms. If I'm really looking to quantize the importance of phase relative to magnitude (relative to the consumer, relative to me) then a fuzzy logic algorithm can do it.

Another consequence is that to ensure 100% transmission from musician to consumer (relative to me), at the conclusion of the tests they must both answer Yes to all of the questions and flow through the same test algorithm path. The inherent data of interest to the engineer are the weights required to force the question path to the same conclusion. Those are the minimum requirements of 100% fidelity from musican to consumer relative to the engineer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/16185637


Having played in an orchestra or two, a couple of bands and having many musician friends I have found over the years that many musicans are, with a few rare exception, indifferent to the reproduction chain. Many of them will happily listen to a boom box and report that it sounds fine to them. It's all about performance and reproductive accuracy means almost nothing.

The test procedure was not to see what musicans like to hear. It was intended to test what the creating artist wanted to communicate to others. I'ld put money that when it comes to recordings of themselves your friends would be more decerning about the quality of the recording.

How else can you explain how ordinary people desire $$ cameras and HD video cameras when there is no financial gain from the equipment?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herc /forum/post/16198661


I'ld put money that when it comes to recordings of themselves your friends would be more decerning about the quality of the recording.

I've spent some time on both sides of the sound board. For 80%, probably 90%, of the musicians I know you would loose that bet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/16198675


I've spent some time on both sides of the sound board. For 80%, probably 90%, of the musicians I know you would loose that bet.

If you told them the recording was for 1. a student,2. a peer, 3. a mentor, 4. a recording company do you think that would affect their concern for fidelity?


And when I lost that bet in terms of fidelity are we talking AM, FM or CD?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herc /forum/post/16198728


If you told them the recording was for 1. a student,2. a peer, 3. a mentor, 4. a recording company do you think that would affect their concern for fidelity?

Don't think it would matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herc /forum/post/16198728


And when I lost that bet in terms of fidelity are we talking AM, FM or CD?

Things that would matter would be things like background noise ( eg. outside noises, not equipment noise floors) and maybe room reverb. Other than that, well they'd ask for CD quality, but.... I've seen musicians home systems include mismatched left and right stereo pairs, boom boxes (or slightly better), speakers everywhere but none of them any good (the louder the better rock and roll type guys), you name it.
 
301 - 320 of 407 Posts
Top