HiFi - Imagination, Exaggeration and Colouration?

[Ajani]

Even if any high end speaker sounds flat the environment of the listeners will vary so much. So what we saying, a speaker sounds too boomy or to bright only with cheaper speakers in any room?.. me think not.

Unless the room is treated high end will not sound as good or believable like pro speakers in a recording studio environment. What's the point of flat in a home environment it not treated.

So treat your home environment or use DSP to correct for it. Why would you want a speaker that isn't flat even in ideal conditions?

I think it's very logically to me. So many homes are way off from what you call a treated room. Anyway that's my point. Too much emphasis is placed on flat. What if a flat speaker sounds bad in your house what do you do then.

Not many have the ability to treat the listening area

So why would a speaker with a skewed frequency response sound better in that untreated room? DSP is still an option and treatment doesn't have to mean ugly acoustic panels. It may just mean curtains, rugs, artwork etc... things that won't make your room look like a studio.

The not very flat sounding speaker may just sound right with the room in question.

Agreed. But you might need to audition dozens of speakers in your listening room to find the one with a matching freq response... It would probably be easier and possibly cheaper to treat the room.

I suspect that a lot of problems that we buy new more expensive components to fix might well have been solved more cheaply and easily by using speakers that measure well and using DSP/room treatments. In other words, rather than buy expensive cables or even a tube amp to correct an overly bright treble, maybe the answer was far simpler. The only way to know is to apply more science and better measurements to the hobby.

If you could have a system ideally tuned to your tastes and listening room, wouldn't you want it? IMO, that's where more focus on the science and measurements could take us. Instead we opt to try and tune by ear, which is truly time consuming and expensive. And even when we find a system we think sounds great, we have no idea what we might still be missing.

 

[Vladimir]

There is no need for room acoustic treatment or DSP. Speakers with good on-axis and off-axis FR will sound good in any room, this is proven with research. If you work in a studio then you may need acustic treatment, but for home use this is absolutely uneccessary to get good sound.

Here's that video again explaining why. *wink*

 

[Native_bon]

There is no need for room acoustic treatment or DSP. Speakers with good on-axis and off-axis FR will sound good in any room, this is proven with research. If you work in a studio then you may need acustic treatment, but for home use this is absolutely uneccessary to get good sound.

Here's that video again explaining why. *wink*

I have seen the video, but with real homes & real people that world does not exist. Flat is good but not it's really not all and all.

Again it seems logical to me a treated room will give better response than a non treated one. We have to disagree, I for one think too much emphasis is placed on flat taking into account
the environment we listen to our music.

 

[Ajani]

There is no need for room acoustic treatment or DSP. Speakers with good on-axis and off-axis FR will sound good in any room, this is proven with research. If you work in a studio then you may need acustic treatment, but for home use this is absolutely uneccessary to get good sound.

Here's that video again explaining why. *wink*

Would they sound better with room treatments and DSP?

 

[Native_bon]

Sorry guys writing on phone at the mo..messing up my messages.

 

[Vladimir]

There is no need for room acoustic treatment or DSP. Speakers with good on-axis and off-axis FR will sound good in any room, this is proven with research. If you work in a studio then you may need acustic treatment, but for home use this is absolutely uneccessary to get good sound.

Here's that video again explaining why. *wink*

Would they sound better with room treatments and DSP?

Arghh! Watch the video 10 times! It's amazing what you can learn from it. And the one by JA about measuring speakers.

 

[Vladimir]

There is no need for room acoustic treatment or DSP. Speakers with good on-axis and off-axis FR will sound good in any room, this is proven with research. If you work in a studio then you may need acustic treatment, but for home use this is absolutely uneccessary to get good sound.

Here's that video again explaining why. *wink*

I have seen the video, but with real homes & real people that world does not exist. Flat is good but not it's really not all and all.

Again it seems logical to me a treated room will give better response than a non treated one. We have to disagree, I for one think too much emphasis is placed on flat taking into account the environment we listen to our music.

Frequency response is an absolute fundamental indicator for speaker accuracy. If your cabinets resonate, it shows. If your tweeter has breakups, it shows. If you have reflections, it shows. If you have any colorations, it shows. Find me one speaker that does 20Hz-20kHz -+0.5dB at 100dB that sounds bad. I'll find you thousands that have 60Hz-20kHz -+3dB at 100dB that sound bad (6dB leeway is huge!). Flat frequency response and good on-axis and off-axis is the make or break for a speaker. You get that right and then you move on to other things.

There is much more to FR measurments than just on-axis. There is sound power, directivity, listening window and off-axis. The Harman Spinorama is beyond simple point microfon and measure tone. It exactly does take into consideration peoples homes, not anechoic environment. There is 40 years and many milions of dollars of research into it. Everything is in the video but it takes some patience for good comprehension. I've watched it maybe 3 times untill I fully got a solid understanding of it.

 

[Native_bon]

There is no need for room acoustic treatment or DSP. Speakers with good on-axis and off-axis FR will sound good in any room, this is proven with research. If you work in a studio then you may need acustic treatment, but for home use this is absolutely uneccessary to get good sound.

Here's that video again explaining why. *wink*

I have seen the video, but with real homes & real people that world does not exist. Flat is good but not it's really not all and all.

Again it seems logical to me a treated room will give better response than a non treated one. We have to disagree, I for one think too much emphasis is placed on flat taking into account the environment we listen to our music.

Frequency response is an absolute fundamental indicator for speaker accuracy. If your cabinets resonate, it shows. If your tweeter has breakups, it shows. If you have reflections, it shows. If you have any colorations, it shows. Find me one speaker that does 20Hz-20kHz -+0.5dB at 100dB that sounds bad. I'll find you thousands that have 60Hz-20kHz -+3dB at 100dB that sound bad (6dB leeway is huge!). Flat frequency response and good on-axis and off-axis is the make or break for a speaker. You get that right and then you move on to other things.?

There is much more to FR measurments than just on-axis. There is sound power, directivity, listening window and off-axis. The Harman Spinorama is beyond simple point microfon and measure tone. It exactly does take into consideration peoples homes, not anechoic environment. There is 40 years and many milions of dollars of research into it. Everything is in the video but it takes some patience for good comprehension. I've watched it maybe 3 times untill I fully got a solid understanding of it.

Again I have watched the video, and even shown it to friends and watched it with them. May be we came to different conclusions. The most part of it is am happy with my system & if most people are that's what really matters.

 

[ellisdj]

There is no need for room acoustic treatment or DSP. Speakers with good on-axis and off-axis FR will sound good in any room, this is proven with research. If you work in a studio then you may need acustic treatment, but for home use this is absolutely uneccessary to get good sound.

Here's that video again explaining why. *wink*

This is rubbish a studio is a room and a listening room is a room and they all have acoustic problems if they are smaller than perfect dimensions.

You can choose to ignore this if you want but to say you don't need it is wrong in my book. Laws physics apply it's science you will like that

 

[Vladimir]

Unless the EQ in your brain doesn't work due to some genetic issue, you don't really need room treatments at home. Positioning does enough when the speakers have good design. Studio environment is more critical because music is produced, not reproduced. If you allow your brain to roughly compensate for room modes that will affects your production/mastering/mixing decisions. But if you are that dedicated for perfection, yes, get some acoustic treatments even at home. But the point was with well designed speakers it is not critical. With bad speakers it yields better results because they are poor off-axis. bla bla bla watch the video.

 

[Vladimir]

There is no need for room acoustic treatment or DSP. Speakers with good on-axis and off-axis FR will sound good in any room, this is proven with research. If you work in a studio then you may need acustic treatment, but for home use this is absolutely uneccessary to get good sound.

Here's that video again explaining why. *wink*

I have seen the video, but with real homes & real people that world does not exist. Flat is good but not it's really not all and all.

Again it seems logical to me a treated room will give better response than a non treated one. We have to disagree, I for one think too much emphasis is placed on flat taking into account the environment we listen to our music.

Frequency response is an absolute fundamental indicator for speaker accuracy. If your cabinets resonate, it shows. If your tweeter has breakups, it shows. If you have reflections, it shows. If you have any colorations, it shows. Find me one speaker that does 20Hz-20kHz -+0.5dB at 100dB that sounds bad. I'll find you thousands that have 60Hz-20kHz -+3dB at 100dB that sound bad (6dB leeway is huge!). Flat frequency response and good on-axis and off-axis is the make or break for a speaker. You get that right and then you move on to other things.

There is much more to FR measurments than just on-axis. There is sound power, directivity, listening window and off-axis. The Harman Spinorama is beyond simple point microfon and measure tone. It exactly does take into consideration peoples homes, not anechoic environment. There is 40 years and many milions of dollars of research into it. Everything is in the video but it takes some patience for good comprehension. I've watched it maybe 3 times untill I fully got a solid understanding of it.

Again I have watched the video, and even shown it to friends and watched it with them. May be we came to different conclusions. The most part of it is am happy with my system & if most people are that's what really matters.

Watch it again.

 

[manicm]

Also Ajani, you're in great danger of becoming another fr0g, Almighty forbid. The brutal truth, dear chap, is that after all the blind tests and analyses, you're using your ears to listen to music. We all do. And no-one 'listens with their eyes' especially when they're stumping up cash. Get over it. And I'm teasing you fr0g.

Based on what? So all the research on sighted bias and DBT testing is straight up nonsense, because audiophiles don't like it? Are audiophiles just immune to these kind of biases? 

I don't have anything against blind testing as such, but I completely despite statements which say because I haven't done blind testing I'm wrong by default. And I still believe the zealous propagation of any form of blind testing is unnecessary.

My experience: in 1991 as a teenager I bought my first cd player - a second hand budget Technics deck that had no remote control. I had it for 11 years before trading up for a new Pioneer DVD player, cos one deck playing movies and music - hell what's cooler? So being neither an audiophile not having any wide hifi experience I nevertheless was an absolute expert about the sounds of my favourite discs and what I loved about the recordings or production. Albums like Prefab Sprout's Jordan: The Comeback - produced by Thomas Dolby. So in a way when the Pioneer came along I was probably more objective than any of you lot. If I had any expectation bias , before that utterly inane term was coined, then it was the positive kind. I expected and wanted a modern dvd player to trump an early nineties cdp. And for cds it turned out to be a huge disappointment. But for movies less so, because they're an audiovisual experience - and here I'd agree that you're watching what you hear and vice versa, but the condescending notion that because you don't do blind testing your ears are not faithful is rubbish rubbish rubbish. You hear with your ears when it comes to music. And blind testing is useful but after 15 minutes it's also exhausting from my experience. It also won't reveal flaws or merits of a system which can only happen over time at home.

Common sense should be the order of the day when someone is spending 500 quid on a system for the first time.

 

[Vladimir]

DBT should be done by manufacturers and reviewers, not the buyers.

 

[Ajani]

Also Ajani, you're in great danger of becoming another fr0g, Almighty forbid. The brutal truth, dear chap, is that after all the blind tests and analyses, you're using your ears to listen to music. We all do. And no-one 'listens with their eyes' especially when they're stumping up cash. Get over it. And I'm teasing you fr0g.

Based on what? So all the research on sighted bias and DBT testing is straight up nonsense, because audiophiles don't like it? Are audiophiles just immune to these kind of biases?

I don't have anything against blind testing as such, but I completely despite statements which say because I haven't done blind testing I'm wrong by default. And I still believe the zealous propagation of any form of blind testing is unnecessary.

My experience: in 1991 as a teenager I bought my first cd player - a second hand budget Technics deck that had no remote control. I had it for 11 years before trading up for a new Pioneer DVD player, cos one deck playing movies and music - hell what's cooler? So being neither an audiophile not having any wide hifi experience I nevertheless was an absolute expert about the sounds of my favourite discs and what I loved about the recordings or production. Albums like Prefab Sprout's Jordan: The Comeback - produced by Thomas Dolby. So in a way when the Pioneer came along I was probably more objective than any of you lot. If I had any expectation bias , before that utterly inane term was coined, then it was the positive kind. I expected and wanted a modern dvd player to trump an early nineties cdp. And for cds it turned out to be a huge disappointment. But for movies less so, because they're an audiovisual experience - and here I'd agree that you're watching what you hear and vice versa, but the condescending notion that because you don't do blind testing your ears are not faithful is rubbish rubbish rubbish. You hear with your ears when it comes to music. And blind testing is useful but after 15 minutes it's also exhausting from my experience. It also won't reveal flaws or merits of a system which can only happen over time at home.

Common sense should be the order of the day when someone is spending 500 quid on a system for the first time.

Despite how debates seem to go on the subject, blind testing most certainly does not mean that you are wrong by default. It also doesn't mean that no differences exist in cables or similarly measuring amps, as some persons claim.

I've always said that what DBT really shows is that a lot of the "night and day" differences audiophiles claim are actually subtle differences at best. Which is where I used the term Exaggeration. Subtle can still be important to you and in the long run may bring a certain level of increased satisfaction.

As for biases, it is a mistake to think that because you didn't prefer the newer tech (dvd) or the more expensive item that it means that you are completely immune to any kind of bias. Why do you assume that bias is one way? I could be biased towards cheapers items, because I think more expensive ones are just rip offs etc..

DBT is just a useful tool (especially for manufacturers!), but that doesn't mean you have to do extensive DBT everytime you want to purchase a new item. I sure wouldn't.

 

[Ajani]

DBT should be done by manufacturers and reviewers, not the buyers.

I Agree.

I use knowledge of DBT to help me determine where best to allocate my funds. Hence I won't spend 50% of my budget on expensive cables ,as I know that any differences spent there will at best be subtle. I know speakers tend to make the most difference, so I'll allocate the lion's share there, etc...

 

[manicm]

Also Ajani, you're in great danger of becoming another fr0g, Almighty forbid. The brutal truth, dear chap, is that after all the blind tests and analyses, you're using your ears to listen to music. We all do. And no-one 'listens with their eyes' especially when they're stumping up cash. Get over it. And I'm teasing you fr0g.

Based on what? So all the research on sighted bias and DBT testing is straight up nonsense, because audiophiles don't like it? Are audiophiles just immune to these kind of biases??

I don't have anything against blind testing as such, but I completely despite statements which say because I haven't done blind testing I'm wrong by default. And I still believe the zealous propagation of any form of blind testing is unnecessary.

My experience: in 1991 as a teenager I bought my first cd player - a second hand budget Technics deck that had no remote control. I had it for 11 years before trading up for a new Pioneer DVD player, cos one deck playing movies and music - hell what's cooler? So being neither an audiophile not having any wide hifi experience I nevertheless was an absolute expert about the sounds of my favourite discs and what I loved about the recordings or production. Albums like Prefab Sprout's Jordan: The Comeback - produced by Thomas Dolby. So in a way when the Pioneer came along I was probably more objective than any of you lot. If I had any expectation bias , before that utterly inane term was coined, then it was the positive kind. I expected and wanted a modern dvd player to trump an early nineties cdp. And for cds it turned out to be a huge disappointment. But for movies less so, because they're an audiovisual experience - and here I'd agree that you're watching what you hear and vice versa, but the condescending notion that because you don't do blind testing your ears are not faithful is rubbish rubbish rubbish. You hear with your ears when it comes to music. And blind testing is useful but after 15 minutes it's also exhausting from my experience. It also won't reveal flaws or merits of a system which can only happen over time at home.

Common sense should be the order of the day when someone is spending 500 quid on a system for the first time.

Despite how debates seem to go on the subject, blind testing most certainly does not mean that you are wrong by default. It also doesn't mean that no differences exist in cables or similarly measuring amps, as some persons claim.

?

I've always said that what DBT really shows is that a lot of the "night and day" differences audiophiles claim are actually subtle differences at best. Which is where I used the term Exaggeration. Subtle can still be important to you and in the long run may bring a certain level of increased satisfaction.?

?

As for biases, it is a mistake to think that because you didn't prefer the newer tech (dvd) or the more expensive item that it means that you are completely immune to any kind of bias. Why do you assume that bias is one way? I could be biased towards cheapers items, because I think more expensive ones are just rip offs etc..?

?

DBT is just a useful tool (especially for manufacturers!), but that doesn't mean you have to do extensive DBT everytime you want to purchase a new item. I sure wouldn't. 

Ok Ajani in my case what bias could I have had? What?? Is it possible that you could simply be wrong in assuming I had any? And in this case I'd say you most likely would be wrong. Plain wrong.

I'd give you another example, do you acknowledge physical pain exists and is real? I once bought a NAD C521i cd player and found it very sibilant to the extent that I couldn't bear to listen to it and sold it soon after, when nothing else in our system changed. Would blind testing have told me otherwise, unless the other player was equally sibilant? I had never experienced such sonic nastiness before.

 

[ellisdj]

Unless the EQ in your brain doesn't work due to some genetic issue, you don't really need room treatments at home. Positioning does enough when the speakers have good design. Studio environment is more critical because music is produced, not reproduced. If you allow your brain to roughly compensate for room modes that will affects your production/mastering/mixing decisions. But if you are that dedicated for perfection, yes, get some acoustic treatments even at home. But the point was with well designed speakers it is not critical. With bad speakers it yields better results because they are poor off-axis. bla bla bla watch the video.

You train your brain to compensate for 20 db dips and peaks good luck with that no placement in world compensates for that

I trained my brain to work out the cause and fix it

 

[Ajani]

Also Ajani, you're in great danger of becoming another fr0g, Almighty forbid. The brutal truth, dear chap, is that after all the blind tests and analyses, you're using your ears to listen to music. We all do. And no-one 'listens with their eyes' especially when they're stumping up cash. Get over it. And I'm teasing you fr0g.

Based on what? So all the research on sighted bias and DBT testing is straight up nonsense, because audiophiles don't like it? Are audiophiles just immune to these kind of biases?

I don't have anything against blind testing as such, but I completely despite statements which say because I haven't done blind testing I'm wrong by default. And I still believe the zealous propagation of any form of blind testing is unnecessary.

My experience: in 1991 as a teenager I bought my first cd player - a second hand budget Technics deck that had no remote control. I had it for 11 years before trading up for a new Pioneer DVD player, cos one deck playing movies and music - hell what's cooler? So being neither an audiophile not having any wide hifi experience I nevertheless was an absolute expert about the sounds of my favourite discs and what I loved about the recordings or production. Albums like Prefab Sprout's Jordan: The Comeback - produced by Thomas Dolby. So in a way when the Pioneer came along I was probably more objective than any of you lot. If I had any expectation bias , before that utterly inane term was coined, then it was the positive kind. I expected and wanted a modern dvd player to trump an early nineties cdp. And for cds it turned out to be a huge disappointment. But for movies less so, because they're an audiovisual experience - and here I'd agree that you're watching what you hear and vice versa, but the condescending notion that because you don't do blind testing your ears are not faithful is rubbish rubbish rubbish. You hear with your ears when it comes to music. And blind testing is useful but after 15 minutes it's also exhausting from my experience. It also won't reveal flaws or merits of a system which can only happen over time at home.

Common sense should be the order of the day when someone is spending 500 quid on a system for the first time.

Despite how debates seem to go on the subject, blind testing most certainly does not mean that you are wrong by default. It also doesn't mean that no differences exist in cables or similarly measuring amps, as some persons claim.

I've always said that what DBT really shows is that a lot of the "night and day" differences audiophiles claim are actually subtle differences at best. Which is where I used the term Exaggeration. Subtle can still be important to you and in the long run may bring a certain level of increased satisfaction.

As for biases, it is a mistake to think that because you didn't prefer the newer tech (dvd) or the more expensive item that it means that you are completely immune to any kind of bias. Why do you assume that bias is one way? I could be biased towards cheapers items, because I think more expensive ones are just rip offs etc..

DBT is just a useful tool (especially for manufacturers!), but that doesn't mean you have to do extensive DBT everytime you want to purchase a new item. I sure wouldn't.

Ok Ajani in my case what bias could I have had? What?? Is it possible that you could simply be wrong in assuming I had any? And in this case I'd say you most likely would be wrong. Plain wrong.

I'd give you another example, do you acknowledge physical pain exists and is real? I once bought a NAD C521i cd player and found it very sibilant to the extent that I couldn't bear to listen to it and sold it soon after, when nothing else in our system changed. Would blind testing have told me otherwise, unless the other player was equally sibilant? I had never experienced such sonic nastiness before.

I don't assume that you made up those differences. I have no idea what any of those components measurements were. The NAD CDP could have been defective for all I know. There are any number of reasons you could have heard a valid difference between components. Whether bias was involved is also unknown. Using DBT just means that you eliminate the potential for bias to have an affect.

Lets take it a step further, even with bias you could still come to the correct conclusion. We have no idea how much, if any, effect bias would have on your decision. But DBT would eliminate the question of whether your decision was biased.

For example, if I have a bias against persons with red hair. If I conduct job interviews and don't hire the candidate with red hair, was that because of my bias or because the person was not qualified? The only way to know would have been to remove my bias from the equation (so let everyone wear hats or some such).

As for your question of what bias you could have had. Who knows? Assuming you had one (which I don't actually assume) it coud be simple tech bias. You could have believed that a dedicated CD player should sound better than a DVD player. It could have been aesthetics, you prefered the look of the Technics CD player. It could have been sentimentality, you had such fond memories of the Technics that you didn't want to part with it. How do you know with absolute certainity that you have no biases? I don't consider myself to be biased, but how would I know? DBT simply eliminates the question from the equation.

 

[Ajani]

There is no need for room acoustic treatment or DSP. Speakers with good on-axis and off-axis FR will sound good in any room, this is proven with research. If you work in a studio then you may need acustic treatment, but for home use this is absolutely uneccessary to get good sound.

Here's that video again explaining why. *wink*

Very interesting video. Best of all it's not too difficult to follow.

 

[Vladimir]

There's no training, we are born with ability to compensate rooms and noisy environments. If you bought the properly designed speakers, you only need to do some speaker positioning to iron out the sub 300Hz frequencies, not sit in a bass suckout and that's pretty much it.
Now if you bought those Wilson Alexandria XLFs with huge 100Hz boost, nothing will make them sound right.

 

[manicm]

Also Ajani, you're in great danger of becoming another fr0g, Almighty forbid. The brutal truth, dear chap, is that after all the blind tests and analyses, you're using your ears to listen to music. We all do. And no-one 'listens with their eyes' especially when they're stumping up cash. Get over it. And I'm teasing you fr0g.

Based on what? So all the research on sighted bias and DBT testing is straight up nonsense, because audiophiles don't like it? Are audiophiles just immune to these kind of biases?

I don't have anything against blind testing as such, but I completely despite statements which say because I haven't done blind testing I'm wrong by default. And I still believe the zealous propagation of any form of blind testing is unnecessary.

My experience: in 1991 as a teenager I bought my first cd player - a second hand budget Technics deck that had no remote control. I had it for 11 years before trading up for a new Pioneer DVD player, cos one deck playing movies and music - hell what's cooler? So being neither an audiophile not having any wide hifi experience I nevertheless was an absolute expert about the sounds of my favourite discs and what I loved about the recordings or production. Albums like Prefab Sprout's Jordan: The Comeback - produced by Thomas Dolby. So in a way when the Pioneer came along I was probably more objective than any of you lot. If I had any expectation bias , before that utterly inane term was coined, then it was the positive kind. I expected and wanted a modern dvd player to trump an early nineties cdp. And for cds it turned out to be a huge disappointment. But for movies less so, because they're an audiovisual experience - and here I'd agree that you're watching what you hear and vice versa, but the condescending notion that because you don't do blind testing your ears are not faithful is rubbish rubbish rubbish. You hear with your ears when it comes to music. And blind testing is useful but after 15 minutes it's also exhausting from my experience. It also won't reveal flaws or merits of a system which can only happen over time at home.

Common sense should be the order of the day when someone is spending 500 quid on a system for the first time.

Despite how debates seem to go on the subject, blind testing most certainly does not mean that you are wrong by default. It also doesn't mean that no differences exist in cables or similarly measuring amps, as some persons claim.

I've always said that what DBT really shows is that a lot of the "night and day" differences audiophiles claim are actually subtle differences at best. Which is where I used the term Exaggeration. Subtle can still be important to you and in the long run may bring a certain level of increased satisfaction.

As for biases, it is a mistake to think that because you didn't prefer the newer tech (dvd) or the more expensive item that it means that you are completely immune to any kind of bias. Why do you assume that bias is one way? I could be biased towards cheapers items, because I think more expensive ones are just rip offs etc..

DBT is just a useful tool (especially for manufacturers!), but that doesn't mean you have to do extensive DBT everytime you want to purchase a new item. I sure wouldn't.

Ok Ajani in my case what bias could I have had? What?? Is it possible that you could simply be wrong in assuming I had any? And in this case I'd say you most likely would be wrong. Plain wrong.

I'd give you another example, do you acknowledge physical pain exists and is real? I once bought a NAD C521i cd player and found it very sibilant to the extent that I couldn't bear to listen to it and sold it soon after, when nothing else in our system changed. Would blind testing have told me otherwise, unless the other player was equally sibilant? I had never experienced such sonic nastiness before.

I don't assume that you made up those differences. I have no idea what any of those components measurements were. The NAD CDP could have been defective for all I know. There are any number of reasons you could have heard a valid difference between components. Whether bias was involved is also unknown. Using DBT just means that you eliminate the potential for bias to have an affect.

Lets take it a step further, even with bias you could still come to the correct conclusion. We have no idea how much, if any, effect bias would have on your decision. But DBT would eliminate the question of whether your decision was biased.

For example, if I have a bias against persons with red hair. If I conduct job interviews and don't hire the candidate with red hair, was that because of my bias or because the person was not qualified? The only way to know would have been to remove my bias from the equation (so let everyone wear hats or some such).

As for your question of what bias you could have had. Who knows? Assuming you had one (which I don't actually assume) it coud be simple tech bias. You could have believed that a dedicated CD player should sound better than a DVD player. It could have been aesthetics, you prefered the look of the Technics CD player. It could have been sentimentality, you had such fond memories of the Technics that you didn't want to part with it. How do you know with absolute certainity that you have no biases? I don't consider myself to be biased, but how would I know? DBT simply eliminates the question from the equation.

You didn't read my post correctly and hence you're spouting pure rubbish. I expected the newer DVD player - a Pioneer - to sound better than the much older Technics cdp. And then you bring in the looks?? THE LOOKS???????!!!!!! For what it's worth, as I reluctantly dignify your question, the Pioneer was actually much nicer looking. You're trying every trick in the book to prove your particular brand of dogma. And I bought the NAD brand new. It wasn't faulty it was just rubbish. You're now scraping the bottom of the barrel and you know it. You can believe what you want, I'll believe me ears thank you, and no-one's gonna shove your kool-aid down my throat.

 

[Covenanter]

There is no need for room acoustic treatment or DSP. Speakers with good on-axis and off-axis FR will sound good in any room, this is proven with research. If you work in a studio then you may need acustic treatment, but for home use this is absolutely uneccessary to get good sound.

Here's that video again explaining why. *wink*

Very interesting video. Best of all it's not too difficult to follow.

It is an excellent video and it should be compulsary viewing.

Chris

 

[Frank Harvey]

I haven't watched the video yet, but I am intrigued, so I'll get to that later. And bear with me, as I'm replying in general to various points made over the past 50 or so posts - this may be a tad patchy.

Room EQ has only become a domestic option in the last 10 years or so, and more so for home cinema than two channel music. Whatever did we do during the last half of the 20th century? "Inferior" vinyl played through valve amps, with low tech speaker designs placed without a care in the world for how they interacted with the room? Did no one enjoy music until this century?

I'm not saying anyone here is right or wrong as I'm not looking to start any tit for tat arguments, as you've all probably got a week off over Xmas/New Year, whereas today is my only day off - I'm hoping to watch a films and relax for the rest of the day with a bottle of wine (an £11 one, for those that like analogies and making assumptions on one's character). And I'm also not going to say that electronic room EQ or physical room treatment don't have their place. The key word here is enjoyment. I've owned hi-fi systems (sorry, audio equipment) since the early 80s, and from the mid 70s I was using my father's. None of those systems ever used any room EQ or treatment. Did I ever have a perfect sounding system? Of course I didn't. Did I ever have a system I didn't enjoy listening to? Certainly not, and those systems would've cost anything from a few hundred up to five figures.

A system can still be thoroughly enjoyable with or without room EQ or room treatments - a perfect room isn't a necessity. Hell, even a high quality hi-fi isn't a necessity. I will admit a system can become more enjoyable if a little care is given to a bit of room treatment. Electronic room EQ can also be beneficial, but in my opinion, preferably applied whilst the signal is still in the digital domain (and not applied at all to an analogue based system). Adding extra A-D and D-A conversions are best avoided, in my opinion.

My own system currently uses no EQ, and hasn't done for around the last 5 years or so, ever since I switched off the EQ circuitry and found the system sounded not necessarily better in technical terms, but just better, more enjoyable. The processor that replaced that one was one stripped of al superfluous features, and my current one similar, but vastly superior in both the analogue and digital domains. Better electronics do sound better, even in bad rooms. I've found this with speakers too, with better speakers showing big differences in bass control in boomy rooms - room issues seem to accentuate small speaker issues, much in the way that an amplifier will do with a source signal.

I know Ellis has heavily treated his room, and that seems to work for him - he has made the best of a bad situation for his system. Electronic EQ exists for those who want what I see as an "easy fix", maybe because the listing room is a living room first and foremost, which is fair enough. I'm still dubious about the latter' effectiveness - not in what it achieves, but just how it achieves it, and the effect it can have on the integrity of the original signal. Whilst you are compensating for the room's issues, you are altering the speaker's output - and this can only be done for one single listening point somewhere in the vicinity of your two ears - or multiple points over a wider area to give a general response, and therefore, not perfect in its execution.

I'm a fan of signal integrity - from source to speaker. The biggest issue I have is whether the electronics or speakers are adding what I see as 'real distortion' - whether these electronics flavour the sound a little is secondary. I know many count coloration as a distortion, but I don't see that as a negative effect/distortion like I would actual distortion which manufacturers quote for. Coloration is usually what draws many people to a particular brand. I would have said that coloration is why many hi-fi retailers exist, but that cannot be true judging by some of the "audio products" people buy nowadays.

 

[Vladimir]

His Monitor Audio PL100s are the issue IMO. You can treat a room to treat a room, but it wont really fix your speaker's issues.

 

[Ajani]

Also Ajani, you're in great danger of becoming another fr0g, Almighty forbid. The brutal truth, dear chap, is that after all the blind tests and analyses, you're using your ears to listen to music. We all do. And no-one 'listens with their eyes' especially when they're stumping up cash. Get over it. And I'm teasing you fr0g.

Based on what? So all the research on sighted bias and DBT testing is straight up nonsense, because audiophiles don't like it? Are audiophiles just immune to these kind of biases?

I don't have anything against blind testing as such, but I completely despite statements which say because I haven't done blind testing I'm wrong by default. And I still believe the zealous propagation of any form of blind testing is unnecessary.

My experience: in 1991 as a teenager I bought my first cd player - a second hand budget Technics deck that had no remote control. I had it for 11 years before trading up for a new Pioneer DVD player, cos one deck playing movies and music - hell what's cooler? So being neither an audiophile not having any wide hifi experience I nevertheless was an absolute expert about the sounds of my favourite discs and what I loved about the recordings or production. Albums like Prefab Sprout's Jordan: The Comeback - produced by Thomas Dolby. So in a way when the Pioneer came along I was probably more objective than any of you lot. If I had any expectation bias , before that utterly inane term was coined, then it was the positive kind. I expected and wanted a modern dvd player to trump an early nineties cdp. And for cds it turned out to be a huge disappointment. But for movies less so, because they're an audiovisual experience - and here I'd agree that you're watching what you hear and vice versa, but the condescending notion that because you don't do blind testing your ears are not faithful is rubbish rubbish rubbish. You hear with your ears when it comes to music. And blind testing is useful but after 15 minutes it's also exhausting from my experience. It also won't reveal flaws or merits of a system which can only happen over time at home.

Common sense should be the order of the day when someone is spending 500 quid on a system for the first time.

Despite how debates seem to go on the subject, blind testing most certainly does not mean that you are wrong by default. It also doesn't mean that no differences exist in cables or similarly measuring amps, as some persons claim.

I've always said that what DBT really shows is that a lot of the "night and day" differences audiophiles claim are actually subtle differences at best. Which is where I used the term Exaggeration. Subtle can still be important to you and in the long run may bring a certain level of increased satisfaction.

As for biases, it is a mistake to think that because you didn't prefer the newer tech (dvd) or the more expensive item that it means that you are completely immune to any kind of bias. Why do you assume that bias is one way? I could be biased towards cheapers items, because I think more expensive ones are just rip offs etc..

DBT is just a useful tool (especially for manufacturers!), but that doesn't mean you have to do extensive DBT everytime you want to purchase a new item. I sure wouldn't.

Ok Ajani in my case what bias could I have had? What?? Is it possible that you could simply be wrong in assuming I had any? And in this case I'd say you most likely would be wrong. Plain wrong.

I'd give you another example, do you acknowledge physical pain exists and is real? I once bought a NAD C521i cd player and found it very sibilant to the extent that I couldn't bear to listen to it and sold it soon after, when nothing else in our system changed. Would blind testing have told me otherwise, unless the other player was equally sibilant? I had never experienced such sonic nastiness before.

I don't assume that you made up those differences. I have no idea what any of those components measurements were. The NAD CDP could have been defective for all I know. There are any number of reasons you could have heard a valid difference between components. Whether bias was involved is also unknown. Using DBT just means that you eliminate the potential for bias to have an affect.

Lets take it a step further, even with bias you could still come to the correct conclusion. We have no idea how much, if any, effect bias would have on your decision. But DBT would eliminate the question of whether your decision was biased.

For example, if I have a bias against persons with red hair. If I conduct job interviews and don't hire the candidate with red hair, was that because of my bias or because the person was not qualified? The only way to know would have been to remove my bias from the equation (so let everyone wear hats or some such).

As for your question of what bias you could have had. Who knows? Assuming you had one (which I don't actually assume) it coud be simple tech bias. You could have believed that a dedicated CD player should sound better than a DVD player. It could have been aesthetics, you prefered the look of the Technics CD player. It could have been sentimentality, you had such fond memories of the Technics that you didn't want to part with it. How do you know with absolute certainity that you have no biases? I don't consider myself to be biased, but how would I know? DBT simply eliminates the question from the equation.

You didn't read my post correctly and hence you're spouting pure rubbish. I expected the newer DVD player - a Pioneer - to sound better than the much older Technics cdp. And then you bring in the looks?? THE LOOKS???????!!!!!! For what it's worth, as I reluctantly dignify your question, the Pioneer was actually much nicer looking. You're trying every trick in the book to prove your particular brand of dogma. And I bought the NAD brand new. It wasn't faulty it was just rubbish. You're now scraping the bottom of the barrel and you know it. You can believe what you want, I'll believe me ears thank you, and no-one's gonna shove your kool-aid down my throat.

What an unpleasant and completely uncalled for response. You asked me to guess possible biases and I just gave some examples and explained clearly that I don't ASSUME you have any biases. I don't even know you and I'm not your therapist. I explained clearly that there's no way I can know what biases you have. Obviously you find the concept of bias offensive for some reason, so everything I type seems to offend you. You are free to believe what you want.