HiFi - Imagination, Exaggeration and Colouration?

[Ajani]

The most ironic part of the negative reaction so many audiophile have to the application of science to the hobby, is that they don't seem to realize that applying science doesn't mean you have to completely change your beliefs and start proclaiming everything as foo and a scam.

One of the most outspoken persons on measurements (who Vlad provided a video link to) John Atkinson, Editor of Stereophile, does not claim that all cables, amps, digital sources etc sound the same. In fact he does research to show why MP3 sound is inferior to CD and High res etc... He owns and uses expensive amps, digital sources and even cables (if I remember correctly). For him even subtle differences can matter to experienced listeners.

Science is not the enemy, there's no need to be afraid of it or offended by it.

 

[Andrewjvt]

I think from the big names Harman speaker brands (JBL, Revel and Infinity) and KEF are walking the path of neutral and smooth frequency response.

Compare the KEF Reference 201/2 to the MA PL100, and for giggles the B&W CM1.

KEF may not be as outspoken as Harman, but looks like they exactly know what they are doing. KEF Blade Two vs B&W 801D. The Dalex is not as good.

What do you think in this regard about atc?

Regards

 

[Ajani]

Vladimir, no-one here is disputing science or blind testing, but when A suggested the looks may have affected my listening, well one needs to recognise one's own pile of foo.

Everybody's perceptions are influenced by other factors. Nobody is immune from it.

Chris

Yep. I thought that was some pretty basic science. Not sure why there is any disagreement on that. I suspect that some audiophiles assume that if they consider the possibility that they have biases, that it means that all their HiFi choices have been wrong or something.

Having biases is natural and you can still make the right decisions despite having them. A simple example was in the Floyd Toole video from earlier in this thread. Where they showed the ratings of 4 speakers in sighted vs blind testing. The results were similar. The top 2 speakers were still the top 2 and the cheapest speaker still finished last. However, the ratings were far wider in the sighted than the blind tests. So if the top rated (and most expensive) speaker was rated a 7 and the bottom (cheapest) speaker was rated a 4 in the blind test. In the sighted test those figures moved to a 9 vs a 2. So the conclusions were right, but the differences were not nearly as extreme when the listeners couldn't see the cheap little plastic speakers vs the well finished luxury ones.

Many of the differences in HiFi are real, but it's easy to subconsciously exaggerate them when you know that product A costs 10x as much as product B. IMO, DBT is excellent for showing how much exaggeration there is in this hobby.

 

[steve_1979]

Everytime I run out of arguments or energy to repeat myself I turn to facetiousness. Can't help it!

At least it amuses drummerman.

And me.

 

[chebby]

What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil”- Friedrich Nietzsche

Yes, love is just a neurochemical/biological/evolutionary process according to scientists.

 

[Vladimir]

What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil”- Friedrich Nietzsche

Yes, love is just a neurochemical/biological/evolutionary process according to scientists.

And it has nothing to do with right and wrong. It's an urge, not morals. Are urges right and wrong? No, they just are.

 

[Vladimir]

I think from the big names Harman speaker brands (JBL, Revel and Infinity) and KEF are walking the path of neutral and smooth frequency response.

Compare the KEF Reference 201/2 to the MA PL100, and for giggles the B&W CM1.

KEF may not be as outspoken as Harman, but looks like they exactly know what they are doing. KEF Blade Two vs B&W 801D. The Dalex is not as good.

What do you think in this regard about atc?

Regards

They really are more of a pro/studio manufacturer, sold in pro shops here where I live. Different ball game. They dipped their toes in the consumer hi fi market, and very successfully.

 

[manicm]

Vladimir, no-one here is disputing science or blind testing, but when A suggested the looks may have affected my listening, well one needs to recognise one's own pile of foo.

Everybody's perceptions are influenced by other factors.  Nobody is immune from it.

Chris

Yes but when looks are brought into the equation then it all goes to hell, and I can't dignify idiocy. The player I kept was far from the best looking.

And while I believe the science how does one measure imaging or soundstaging? The thing is manufacturers colour speakers as well. You'd be naive to think otherwise.

 

[Covenanter]

Vladimir, no-one here is disputing science or blind testing, but when A suggested the looks may have affected my listening, well one needs to recognise one's own pile of foo.

Everybody's perceptions are influenced by other factors. Nobody is immune from it.

Chris

Yes but when looks are brought into the equation then it all goes to hell, and I can't dignify idiocy. The player I kept was far from the best looking.

And while I believe the science how does one measure imaging or soundstaging? The thing is manufacturers colour speakers as well. You'd be naive to think otherwise.

Resorting to insults isn't productive! It's also rather childish.

But you misunderstand. It's isn't necessarily the aesthetics that influence you, although they might, but simply for example knowing the brand and/or the price. See the video that Vlad posted that shows that people's ratings of speakers changes when they can see it. It's a well-understood and documented phenomenon and if you believe you are immune from it then you are simply deceiving yourself.

You can measure "imaging" and "soundstaging" because everything is in the signal. There is no magic ingredient that is outside the signal and you can measure the signal. It might not be easy to translate that into subjective terms but the information is there.

Chris

 

[manicm]

Vladimir, no-one here is disputing science or blind testing, but when A suggested the looks may have affected my listening, well one needs to recognise one's own pile of foo.

Everybody's perceptions are influenced by other factors.  Nobody is immune from it.

Chris

Yes but when looks are brought into the equation then it all goes to hell, and I can't dignify idiocy. The player I kept was far from the best looking.

And while I believe the science how does one measure imaging or soundstaging? The thing is manufacturers colour speakers as well. You'd be naive to think otherwise.

Resorting to insults isn't productive!  It's also rather childish.

But you misunderstand.  It's isn't necessarily the aesthetics that influence you, although they might, but simply for example knowing the brand and/or the price.  See the video that Vlad posted that shows that people's ratings of speakers changes when they can see it.  It's a well-understood and documented phenomenon and if you believe you are immune from it then you are simply deceiving yourself.

You can measure "imaging" and "soundstaging" because everything is in the signal.  There is no magic ingredient that is outside the signal and you can measure the signal.  It might not be easy to translate that into subjective terms but the information is there.

Chris

Look Chris, I explained things, and looks had nothing to do with it at all. I had no brand loyalty, Technics was already bust in the early noughties, but no you'll insist that I may have been wrong because I didn't do blind testing. I did one better than that - I had 2 disc players for months and decided one was rubbish.

 

[chebby]

I'm not sure how much actual 'science' has been involved in loudspeaker and amplifier design since the 1950s & 1960s. I think the scientists had moved on by then, leaving the rest (including CDs) to technologists rather than people making fundamental new discoveries. DACs and ADCs with inaudible levels of jitter (DBT tested by the BBC) were being perfected for digital transmission of television audio signals (and digital distribution of FM radio via leased lines to transmitters) back from the early 1960s onwards.

As far as digital and amps and loudspeakers are concerned it's been tweaking and 'perfecting' for about the last 50 years or more. Scientists from my grandparent's and great-grandparent's generations did the 'heavy lifting' with all the fundamental science in this and related fields.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Vladimir, no-one here is disputing science or blind testing, but when A suggested the looks may have affected my listening, well one needs to recognise one's own pile of foo.

Everybody's perceptions are influenced by other factors. Nobody is immune from it.

Chris

Yes but when looks are brought into the equation then it all goes to hell, and I can't dignify idiocy. The player I kept was far from the best looking.

And while I believe the science how does one measure imaging or soundstaging? The thing is manufacturers colour speakers as well. You'd be naive to think otherwise.

Resorting to insults isn't productive! It's also rather childish.

But you misunderstand. It's isn't necessarily the aesthetics that influence you, although they might, but simply for example knowing the brand and/or the price. See the video that Vlad posted that shows that people's ratings of speakers changes when they can see it. It's a well-understood and documented phenomenon and if you believe you are immune from it then you are simply deceiving yourself.

You can measure "imaging" and "soundstaging" because everything is in the signal. There is no magic ingredient that is outside the signal and you can measure the signal. It might not be easy to translate that into subjective terms but the information is there.

Chris

Interesting. - If you can measure imaging and soundstaging, what piece of equipment would you measure them with and what units would you define them in?

Please point to a piece of equipment capable of doing this. I'd like to see some science showing the difference between two different speaker pairs in their presentation of imaging and soundstaging.

 

[Covenanter]

Vladimir, no-one here is disputing science or blind testing, but when A suggested the looks may have affected my listening, well one needs to recognise one's own pile of foo.

Everybody's perceptions are influenced by other factors. Nobody is immune from it.

Chris

Yes but when looks are brought into the equation then it all goes to hell, and I can't dignify idiocy. The player I kept was far from the best looking.

And while I believe the science how does one measure imaging or soundstaging? The thing is manufacturers colour speakers as well. You'd be naive to think otherwise.

Resorting to insults isn't productive! It's also rather childish.

But you misunderstand. It's isn't necessarily the aesthetics that influence you, although they might, but simply for example knowing the brand and/or the price. See the video that Vlad posted that shows that people's ratings of speakers changes when they can see it. It's a well-understood and documented phenomenon and if you believe you are immune from it then you are simply deceiving yourself.

You can measure "imaging" and "soundstaging" because everything is in the signal. There is no magic ingredient that is outside the signal and you can measure the signal. It might not be easy to translate that into subjective terms but the information is there.

Chris

Interesting. - If you can measure imaging and soundstaging, what piece of equipment would you measure them with and what units would you define them in?

Please point to a piece of equipment capable of doing this. I'd like to see some science showing the difference between two different speaker pairs in their presentation of imaging and soundstaging.

I said it wouldn't be easy! That's because you would have to start with an agreement about what the terms mean. If we could get to that, which I doubt, then you could design equipment to detect it. My point though is that the information is there in the signal, there is nowhere else for it to be.

The other point is that without any agreement about what these terms mean my use of them might mean nothing to you. So any discussion we have would be fairly pointless. It's like the subjective reviews that WHF serves up, they mean nothing.

Chris

Chris

 

[Ajani]

I'm not sure how much actual 'science' has been involved in loudspeaker and amplifier design since the 1950s & 1960s. I think the scientists had moved on by then, leaving the rest (including CDs) to technologists rather than people making fundamental new discoveries. DACs and ADCs with inaudible levels of jitter (DBT tested by the BBC) were being perfected for digital transmission of television audio signals (and digital distribution of FM radio via leased lines to transmitters) back from the early 1960s onwards.

As far as digital and amps and loudspeakers are concerned it's been tweaking and 'perfecting' for about the last 50 years or more. Scientists from my grandparent's and great-grandparent's generations did the 'heavy lifting' with all the fundamental science in this and related fields.

I think that's true of most HiFi manufacturers. How many have access to proper research facilities? Further, how many really are interested? Why should you spend extremely large amounts of money to invest in research, if you can simply do a bit of trial and error with more exotic materials and old designs?

 

[Covenanter]

I'm not sure how much actual 'science' has been involved in loudspeaker and amplifier design since the 1950s & 1960s. I think the scientists had moved on by then, leaving the rest (including CDs) to technologists rather than people making fundamental new discoveries. DACs and ADCs with inaudible levels of jitter (DBT tested by the BBC) were being perfected for digital transmission of television audio signals (and digital distribution of FM radio via leased lines to transmitters) back from the early 1960s onwards.

As far as digital and amps and loudspeakers are concerned it's been tweaking and 'perfecting' for about the last 50 years or more. Scientists from my grandparent's and great-grandparent's generations did the 'heavy lifting' with all the fundamental science in this and related fields.

In terms of fundamental physics that's certainly true.

Chris

 

[Ajani]

Resorting to insults isn't productive! It's also rather childish.

But you misunderstand. It's isn't necessarily the aesthetics that influence you, although they might, but simply for example knowing the brand and/or the price. See the video that Vlad posted that shows that people's ratings of speakers changes when they can see it. It's a well-understood and documented phenomenon and if you believe you are immune from it then you are simply deceiving yourself.

You can measure "imaging" and "soundstaging" because everything is in the signal. There is no magic ingredient that is outside the signal and you can measure the signal. It might not be easy to translate that into subjective terms but the information is there.

Chris

It's funny, I remember Vlad and I being accused by the anti-science crowd in this thread of using veiled insults cuz we ran out of points etc... Yet I don't see them objecting to a string of blatant insults being aimed at me by somone from their side of the argument.

Anyway Chris, I'm sure you can see arguing this point with him is a waste of time.

 

[manicm]

I'm not sure how much actual 'science' has been involved in loudspeaker and amplifier design since the 1950s & 1960s. I think the scientists had moved on by then, leaving the rest (including CDs) to technologists rather than people making fundamental new discoveries. DACs and ADCs with inaudible levels of jitter (DBT tested by the BBC) were being perfected for digital transmission of television audio signals (and digital distribution of FM radio via leased lines to transmitters) back from the early 1960s onwards.

As far as digital and amps and loudspeakers are concerned it's been tweaking and 'perfecting' for about the last 50 years or more. Scientists from my grandparent's and great-grandparent's generations did the 'heavy lifting' with all the fundamental science in this and related fields.

I think that's true of most HiFi manufacturers. How many have access to proper research facilities? Further, how many really are interested? Why should you spend extremely large amounts of money to invest in research, if you can simply do a bit of trial and error with more exotic materials and old designs? 

Ok so what would these facilities be exactly, that's a pretty serious allegation or generalisation you're making. B&O seem to have extensive facilities.

So if you say that such measurements would be difficult to perform then what is a customer to do in a hifi shop? I'm not actually disagreeing with you, as compared to pcs and other electronics hifi has actually become more expensive, separate components especially. So at nearly any attainable level, compromises have to be made. And ultimately buyers are going to use their ears and not any measurements before purchasing.

 

[Vladimir]

Imaging and soundstaging is not a mystery, they are part of designing good driver dispersion, directivity, time alignment, cabinet reflections etc. As we mentioned the JBL M2 speakers, they have mathematically projected and designed waveguides that improve imaging and soundstaging significantly. You can read about this greater details online. Also check about Edgar Villchur's (AR) invention of the dome tweeter.

Regarding the Pioneer DVD player and the Technics CDP, there could be expectation bias due to price, brand, anecdotal reviews, testimonials, one is old, other is new, even looks. But there could be real audible differences like one player could have a louder output, and we know that this in a sighted test is always interpreted as better. Maybe the old Technics has some small deffect like a dried out capacitor with high ESR in the output or filter stage. There are many factors that could affect our decision, especially in a sighted test.

 

[manicm]

Imaging and soundstaging is not a mystery, they are part of designing good driver dispersion, directivity, time alignment, cabinet reflections etc. As we mentioned the JBL M2 speakers, they have mathematically projected and designed waveguides that improve imaging and soundstaging significantly. You can read about this greater details online. Also check about Edgar Villchur's (AR) invention of the dome tweeter.

Regarding the Pioneer DVD player and the Technics CDP, there could be expectation bias due to price, brand, anecdotal reviews, testimonials, one is old, other is new, even looks. But there could be real audible differences like one player could have a louder output, and we know that this in a sighted test is always interpreted as better. Maybe the old Technics has some small deffect like a dried out capacitor with high ESR in the output or filter stage. There are many factors that could affect our decision, especially in a sighted test.?

 

Vladimir for the umpteenth time read my first reply before you spew nonsense - I say this because you clearly didn't read properly. I was happy with the Technics but wanted a dvd replacement so I could play movies and music with one deck. Is that so hard to fathom?

What I was trying to say that I found my first Pioneer dvd and NAD players so disappointing that sometimes things are so clear cut you don't need blind testing. But no, invariably you will continue to argue otherwise...

 

[Ajani]

Imaging and soundstaging is not a mystery, they are part of designing good driver dispersion, directivity, time alignment, cabinet reflections etc. As we mentioned the JBL M2 speakers, they have mathematically projected and designed waveguides that improve imaging and soundstaging significantly. You can read about this greater details online.

Yep. It's not Witchcraft, it's science! The more effort that is spent on understanding how to measure these areas, is all the better for the hobby.

Regarding the Pioneer DVD player and the Technics CDP, there could be expectation bias due to price, brand, anecdotal reviews, testimonials, one is old, other is new, even looks. But there could be real audible differences like one player could have a louder output, and we know that this in a sighted test is always interpreted as better. Maybe the old Technics has some small deffect like a dried out capacitor with high ESR in the output or filter stage. There are many factors that could affect our decision, especially in a sighted test.

I pretty much made all those points earlier. We've all seen the responses, especially to the highlighted word. Waste of time.

 

[Ajani]

I'm not sure how much actual 'science' has been involved in loudspeaker and amplifier design since the 1950s & 1960s. I think the scientists had moved on by then, leaving the rest (including CDs) to technologists rather than people making fundamental new discoveries. DACs and ADCs with inaudible levels of jitter (DBT tested by the BBC) were being perfected for digital transmission of television audio signals (and digital distribution of FM radio via leased lines to transmitters) back from the early 1960s onwards.

As far as digital and amps and loudspeakers are concerned it's been tweaking and 'perfecting' for about the last 50 years or more. Scientists from my grandparent's and great-grandparent's generations did the 'heavy lifting' with all the fundamental science in this and related fields.

I think that's true of most HiFi manufacturers. How many have access to proper research facilities? Further, how many really are interested? Why should you spend extremely large amounts of money to invest in research, if you can simply do a bit of trial and error with more exotic materials and old designs?

Ok so what would these facilities be exactly, that's a pretty serious allegation or generalisation you're making. B&O seem to have extensive facilities.

So if you say that such measurements would be difficult to perform then what is a customer to do in a hifi shop? I'm not actually disagreeing with you, as compared to pcs and other electronics hifi has actually become more expensive, separate components especially. So at nearly any attainable level, compromises have to be made. And ultimately buyers are going to use their ears and not any measurements before purchasing.

No thanks. I'm not taking your bait again.

 

[Vladimir]

One of the most outspoken persons on measurements (who Vlad provided a video link to) John Atkinson, Editor of Stereophile, does not claim that all cables, amps, digital sources etc sound the same. In fact he does research to show why MP3 sound is inferior to CD and High res etc... He owns and uses expensive amps, digital sources and even cables (if I remember correctly). For him even subtle differences can matter to experienced listeners.

The most interesting part is if you look at JA's last third of the video about measuring loudspeakers, he is 100% consistent with the research findings presented by Toole and Olive. They all submit papers as members of the AES (Audio Engineering Society) and obviously take from the pool of knowledge and thus improve their professional capacity. Their different opinions about how to handle the subjective end of psycho-acoustics don't stop them being productive in their work.

Dr. Toole is obviously taking the more high road with full on scientific objective paradigm comapred to Atkinson, but this is a luxury he can afford with Harman's resources available to him. JA doesn't even have a basic anechoic chamber or a pool of trained listeners to give him objective info from a multimillion dollar DBT testing facility. He works with what he has, reviewers and testing equipment affordable for a magazine. It still is a more balanced approach than just anecdotal reviews.

 

[Vladimir]

What I was trying to say that I found my first Pioneer dvd and NAD players so disappointing that sometimes things are so clear cut you don't need blind testing. But no, invariably you will continue to argue otherwise...

Not hard to fathom. We are moving the discussion beyond what you picked for playing your CDs.

All you did is heard something that you found more appealing to you. Why you did so is not something you can answer, only keep repeating yourself that you prefered A over B.

Why was one player better than the other to you, despite scientific theory and engineering (applied science) both telling us there should be no audible qualitative differences, only possibly quantative? You told us you heard a difference, now think why.

 

[Ajani]

One of the most outspoken persons on measurements (who Vlad provided a video link to) John Atkinson, Editor of Stereophile, does not claim that all cables, amps, digital sources etc sound the same. In fact he does research to show why MP3 sound is inferior to CD and High res etc... He owns and uses expensive amps, digital sources and even cables (if I remember correctly). For him even subtle differences can matter to experienced listeners.

The most interesting part is if you look at JA's last third of the video about measuring loudspeakers, he is 100% consistent with the research findings presented by Toole and Olive. They all submit papers as members of the AES (Audio Engineering Society) and obviously take from the pool of knowledge and thus improve their professional capacity. Their different opinions about how to handle the subjective end of psycho-acoustics don't stop them being productive in their work.

Dr. Toole is obviously taking the more high road with full on scientific objective paradigm comapred to Atkinson, but this is a luxury he can afford with Harman's resources available to him. JA doesn't even have a basic anechoic chamber or a pool of trained listeners to give him objective info from a multimillion dollar DBT testing facility. He works with what he has, reviewers and testing equipment affordable for a magazine. It still is a more balanced approach than just anecdotal reviews.

Yep, I suspect that if JA had access to DBT facilities he'd probably include some DBT as well. But I find the combination of sighted reviews and measurements to be a decent compromise. It always leads to fun debates on the US forums, when another Audio Note DAC measures like a broken device, yet the subjective review proclaims it as the sounding like the horns of the angels.

 

[manicm]

What I was trying to say that I found my first Pioneer dvd and NAD players so disappointing that sometimes things are so clear cut you don't need blind testing. But no, invariably you will continue to argue otherwise...

Not hard to fathom. We are moving the discussion beyond what you picked for playing your CDs.

All you did is heard something that you found more appealing to you. Why you did so is not something you can answer, only keep repeating yourself that you prefered A over B.

Why was one player better than the other to you, despite scientific theory and engineering (applied science) both telling us there should be no audible qualitative differences, only possibly quantative? You told us you heard a difference, now think why.

Ok I'll indulge your particular combination of incomprehension and obduracy. The first Pioneer dvd deck simply sounded as dull as dishwater with cds. There was a lack of clarity and detail. I then traded up to a better Pioneer dvd model. It was an improvement but I found it extreme to the other end - I found it very clear, but also very bright and detailed. Because initially I could not get used to this hyper-detailed sound (to me anyway) and I had already sold my Technics, I then read about and acquired the NAD C521i cdp. It was very sibilant to the point of hurting my ears and had a soundstage that focused too much in the middle, I however tried to persevere with it for months in conjunction with the 2nd Pioneer dvd deck. After 4 or 5 months I had actually gotten used to the Pioneer and ditched the NAD. The Pioneer was bright and detailed but did not have the nasty sibilance.

So I had months of listening to both decks, and I had my Technics for 11 years before that.